The Ron Paul Thread [Archive] - The Superhero Hype! Boards

Pages : [1] 2 3

BlackLantern

01-10-2008, 09:48 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html

Thanks for playing Ron....hopefully all that money you collected buys you some dignity

Matt

01-10-2008, 10:12 PM

And here I was thinking the 2 % of the vote and no one giving a **** no matter how good his ideas were was enough of a reason.

The Senator

01-10-2008, 10:19 PM

Ron Paul is a lot of things. This is what happens when people don't read up on a candidate, and instead support him because either a) he would support the decriminalization of marijuana and other drugs or b) their friends support him on Facebook.

Seriously though... that doesn't surprise me. His supporters are nutso-crazy.

hippie_hunter

01-10-2008, 10:47 PM

Ron Paul has obviously denied these papers. And they seem to be rather out of character.

Spider-Bite

01-11-2008, 12:35 AM

The Senator

01-11-2008, 12:38 AM

I already knew about this a long time ago, which is why I was so surprised you supported him, Hippie.

curious which drugs does he want to legalize? I am dead against legalizing anything except marijuana.

He doesn't want to legalize them, per se, he just wants to decriminalize them-- or at least that's what he said at a rally a few months ago. I'm not sure which drugs he wants to decriminalize specifically, other than marijuana.

Matt

01-11-2008, 12:56 AM

What exactly is the difference?

Spider-Bite

01-11-2008, 01:00 AM

What exactly is the difference?

I was wondering the same thing.

The Senator

01-11-2008, 01:06 AM

What exactly is the difference?

I think it's legalization without explicitly making it legal. For example, you wouldn't be able to sell it publicly (in a specialized store or what have you), but you wouldn't be charged with a criminal offense if you possess it.

Spider-Bite

01-11-2008, 01:11 AM

I think it's legalization without explicitly making it legal. For example, you wouldn't be able to sell it publicly (in a specialized store or what have you), but you wouldn't be charged with a criminal offense if you possess it.

That defeats almost the entire purpose of legalizing it in the first place. We need to tax it.

Matt

01-11-2008, 01:13 AM

That defeats almost the entire purpose of legalizing it in the first place. We need to tax it.

Exactly

The Senator

01-11-2008, 01:22 AM

I agree that it ought to be sold and taxed. Best idea ever.

CorpusBlack

01-11-2008, 09:27 AM

He doesn't want to legalize them, per se, he just wants to decriminalize them-- or at least that's what he said at a rally a few months ago. I'm not sure which drugs he wants to decriminalize specifically, other than marijuana.

With Ron Paul basically being Libertarian, he would be for decriminalizing all illegal substances, as each individual is in control of their own life and can do what they want as long as it doesn't take away from the rights of other individuals.

I agree that it ought to be sold and taxed. Best idea ever.

If Ron Paul had his way, it would be taxed to fit within the FairTax system, which he supports. However, even if you can buy it in a store where you pay tax, who is going to stop Joe Blow from growing it and selling it as he does now. With it being decriminalized, the law would just slap you on the wrist. And that's even if cops give a sh-t about it at that point.

bell110

01-11-2008, 09:54 AM

Obviously fake. Come on guys, I thought you were smarter than that.

Mr Sparkle

01-11-2008, 10:08 AM

Obviously fake. Come on guys, I thought you were smarter than that.
I don't know about about that but even if he didn't write them and if they are indeed part of his newsletter shouldn't he have taken a close look at them, I mean, they were HIS newsletters.

Also, they resurrected some old stormfront thread up in community and I noticed an alarming amount of those cats have Ron Paul banners as their sigs.

CorpusBlack

01-11-2008, 10:24 AM

Obviously fake. Come on guys, I thought you were smarter than that.

CNN is quite sh-t at reporting and researching their material. I don't believe it to be honest. However, if it is true, that's really f'd up.

BlackLantern

01-11-2008, 10:29 AM

true or not....having your name attached to something like that can spell the end of any hope of a candidacy....its not like he would have won anyway

bell110

01-11-2008, 10:29 AM

I don't know about about that but even if he didn't write them and if they are indeed part of his newsletter shouldn't he have taken a close look at them, I mean, they were HIS newsletters.

Also, they resurrected some old stormfront thread up in community and I noticed an alarming amount of those cats have Ron Paul banners as their sigs.

Where is that thread? I didn't see it.

CorpusBlack

01-11-2008, 10:32 AM

true or not....having your name attached to something like that can spell the end of any hope of a candidacy....its not like he would have won anyway

True. But they all have skeletons in their closet man.

I do however find it hard to believe that someone in his position, even 15 years ago, would actually spew those words knowing what kind of backlash it could cause. It's just common sense.

BlackLantern

01-11-2008, 10:34 AM

True. But they all have skeletons in their closet man.

I do however find it hard to believe that someone in his position, even 15 years ago, would actually spew those words knowing what kind of backlash it could cause. It's just common sense.

People like him don't believe what they are saying is actually wrong....thats the big problem

Mr Sparkle

01-11-2008, 10:37 AM

Where is that thread? I didn't see it.

here (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=193749)

CorpusBlack

01-11-2008, 10:38 AM

People like him don't believe what they are saying is actually wrong....thats the big problem

And that's why our country is falling to sh-t IMO.

bell110

01-11-2008, 10:40 AM

true or not....having your name attached to something like that can spell the end of any hope of a candidacy....its not like he would have won anyway

I can attach anybodys name to anything I want. I will not believe this untill there is proof that these letters are legit. And even then, I will have to know how these letters came to be.

Unfortunitly, most people wont bother to find out if they are real. They'll just read the headline and make up their mind. :csad:

CorpusBlack

01-11-2008, 10:41 AM

Unfortunitly, most people wont bother to find out if they are real. They'll just read the headline and make up their mind. :csad:

The land of misinformation.

BlackLantern

01-11-2008, 10:43 AM

bell110

01-11-2008, 10:48 AM

People like him don't believe what they are saying is actually wrong....thats the big problem

What's that supposed to mean :ninja:

Seriously, those aren't his words.

SuBe

01-11-2008, 10:49 AM

He doesn't want to legalize them, per se, he just wants to decriminalize them-- or at least that's what he said at a rally a few months ago. I'm not sure which drugs he wants to decriminalize specifically, other than marijuana.
That is correct, Decriminalization of Illecit Drugs to reign in the High, High cost of the "War on Drugs". Reformat the system so addicts get Rehab instead of Madatory Sentences. Libertarians Do Not believe in Victimless Crime.

bell110

01-11-2008, 10:50 AM

I have a gut feeling they are real....I was fairly neutral about Ron Paul, had some ideas that were a little out there, but I knew the Party would never take him seriously and he would be the Jester candidate....but now, its only a matter of time before he withdraws IMO......probably during the summer time I'd guess

I disagree. A little thing like this shouldn't stop him. He's too passionate. I believe he'll be the Libertarian candidate after he looses the Republican primaries.

BlackLantern

01-11-2008, 10:52 AM

What's that supposed to mean :ninja:

Seriously, those aren't his words.

maybe they are and maybe they aren't...but they are in his newsletter and could be and probably are his ideas. "People like him" means that there are people out there who believe minorities are inferior simply because they are a different color, that gays are inferior because of their lifestyle.......that the white man is superior to all....so IMO anyone who has sent him money or is supporting him is wasting their vote

AllThingsComic

01-11-2008, 10:58 AM

Dr. Paul said this would happen as he starts to gain more support. The other candidates are starting to worry about him, so now all the smearing starts. It's so typical. The man served his country, delivered babies of all races, warned us what would happen if we went into this war through the back door. So the worst these morons can come up with is a newsletter not even written by him, please.

CorpusBlack

01-11-2008, 11:06 AM

I disagree. A little thing like this shouldn't stop him. He's too passionate. I believe he'll be the Libertarian candidate after he looses the Republican primaries.

That's what I'm hoping actually. I don't think he'll go quietly and we need a viable third party in this country. Him running Libertarian is a step in that direction and it'll create a bigger impact than say Nader as the front man for the Green party IMO.

BlackLantern

01-11-2008, 11:08 AM

yes Ron Paul may be the darling of the internets...but if you just ask the general voting public who he is......no one ****ing has any clue he even exists. I really had no clue about the man untill just recently...I just have a gut feeling that he is connected to this....I bear no malice towards the man, but if this is true then he doesnt deserve any support from anyone whatsoever

CorpusBlack

01-11-2008, 11:10 AM

BlackLantern

01-11-2008, 11:14 AM

CorpusBlack

01-11-2008, 11:17 AM

Proof or not, my gut tells me that those are genuine....and in most cases its good enough for me....I'm not going to vote for someone who isnt a factor...and he isnt and never will be....we actually have a pool at the office set up for his withdrawal from the race....I have the 3rd week in August...

And that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. :up: Personally, I don't know who the hell I'm going to support at this point. They all p-ss me off to some degree. :grin:

Does the pool include an option for him running Libertarian?

BlackLantern

01-11-2008, 11:21 AM

And that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. :up: Personally, I don't know who the hell I'm going to support at this point. They all p-ss me off to some degree. :grin:

Does the pool include an option for him running Libertarian?

no...we set the pool when one of the guys found the story about the newsletters......later on yesterday afternoon everyone involved tossed in a dollar on a week where they thought he would withdraw.....the way the system is set up, we are basically told WHO to vote for with both partys national conventions.....I cant even remember if a candidate, not nominated by a party, won an election. Ron Paul is a court jester, he'll make for some good laughs and thats about it.....

bell110

01-11-2008, 12:04 PM

maybe they are and maybe they aren't...but they are in his newsletter and could be and probably are his ideas. "People like him" means that there are people out there who believe minorities are inferior simply because they are a different color, that gays are inferior because of their lifestyle.......that the white man is superior to all....so IMO anyone who has sent him money or is supporting him is wasting their vote

I could forge any type of document and put anyones name on it. I need to see more proof that it's real. Remember the forged document that someone made about Bush that turned out wrong?

yes Ron Paul may be the darling of the internets...but if you just ask the general voting public who he is......no one ****ing has any clue he even exists. I really had no clue about the man untill just recently...I just have a gut feeling that he is connected to this....I bear no malice towards the man, but if this is true then he doesnt deserve any support from anyone whatsoever

Proof or not, my gut tells me that those are genuine....and in most cases its good enough for me....I'm not going to vote for someone who isnt a factor...and he isnt and never will be....we actually have a pool at the office set up for his withdrawal from the race....I have the 3rd week in August...

Come on, your gut feeling is good enough? You even said you know nothing about the man. How can you make a judgement about him?

He may not win, but I'm voting for him regardless.

bell110

01-11-2008, 12:07 PM

That's what I'm hoping actually. I don't think he'll go quietly and we need a viable third party in this country. Him running Libertarian is a step in that direction and it'll create a bigger impact than say Nader as the front man for the Green party IMO.

He started his political career as a libertarian I believe. Now that alot of people know about him, if he goes for the libertarian candidate, it will draw attention to the party. :up:

CorpusBlack

01-11-2008, 12:16 PM

He started his political career as a libertarian I believe. Now that alot of people know about him, if he goes for the libertarian candidate, it will draw attention to the party. :up:

Considering I'm slowly moving towards Libertarian myself, this is a good thing IMO. :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: However, I still haven't made my opinion up between all the secondary parties. Im just like what I've read about the Libertarians so far and they've peaked my interest the most. I'm done with the Rep/Dem bullsh-t.

bell110

01-11-2008, 12:50 PM

Considering I'm slowly moving towards Libertarian myself, this is a good thing IMO. :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: However, I still haven't made my opinion up between all the secondary parties. Im just like what I've read about the Libertarians so far and they've peaked my interest the most. I'm done with the Rep/Dem bullsh-t.

Good for you. :up: If more people actually looked into third parties, instead of pigeon-holeing themselves into either a Rep or Dem, we might have some honest politicans and not so many disenfranchised voters.

AllThingsComic

01-14-2008, 09:16 AM

no...we set the pool when one of the guys found the story about the newsletters......later on yesterday afternoon everyone involved tossed in a dollar on a week where they thought he would withdraw.....the way the system is set up, we are basically told WHO to vote for with both partys national conventions.....I cant even remember if a candidate, not nominated by a party, won an election. Ron Paul is a court jester, he'll make for some good laughs and thats about it.....

I truly feel bad that you think someone who makes such actual common sense is considered comical to you. What exactly does he say that would make you laugh? That we are in a war that the gov't, not the people chose to fight and that our Soldiers are dying for a war that we should have never been in in the first place? I don't see what's so comical about that or that he wants to give Americans thier liberty back and to have a gov't that is for the people and not for corporate America. I just for the life of me can't see why the rest of America isn't psyched for Ron Paul. He is the common man we have been waiting over 20 years for.

Darthphere

01-14-2008, 11:30 AM

Also, they resurrected some old stormfront thread up in community and I noticed an alarming amount of those cats have Ron Paul banners as their sigs.

That probably has to do more with the fact that he wants to close the border and kick all them damn illegals out.

BlackLantern

01-14-2008, 11:34 AM

I truly feel bad that you think someone who makes such actual common sense is considered comical to you. What exactly does he say that would make you laugh? That we are in a war that the gov't, not the people chose to fight and that our Soldiers are dying for a war that we should have never been in in the first place? I don't see what's so comical about that or that he wants to give Americans thier liberty back and to have a gov't that is for the people and not for corporate America. I just for the life of me can't see why the rest of America isn't psyched for Ron Paul. He is the common man we have been waiting over 20 years for.

He also seems to be an isolationist....and according to those newsletters, a racist as well....I dont think Id want him as President. In todays climate, both economically and diplomatically, we cant be an isolationist country....we need a President who wants to improve our image in the global community. As far as the war....the US would have to have invaded there eventually....if not now...maybe 10 or 15 years from now when Saddam decided to test more chemical weapons on his people....

AllThingsComic

01-14-2008, 11:47 AM

I honestly think right now the reasons we are hated throughout the world IS because we interfere to much. Maybe a little isolation is exactly what this country needs right now to build itself back to the status we used to be, besides, Ron Paul doesn't want to totally cut off ties with other countries, but believes in negotatiationing diplomatically and a FAIR trade. As far as the newsletter goes, he's already brought to light that those are not his words and it was his fault for not reading the newsletter in it's entirety. You still have not given a reason for him being a jester and a joke and you have not mentioned any of the points that I brought up in my reply.

BlackLantern

01-14-2008, 11:50 AM

I'm an american...I have a job, a home, my liberty is just fine....its that propaganda from the left that is really hurting people....i am actually better off today than i was 5 years ag0

AllThingsComic

01-14-2008, 11:55 AM

Ok You're fine now, what about 5 years from now, it's already known that we are in the beginings of a recession. The dollar now is very weak compared to other currencies and what's gonna happen when China and the Saudis stop lending us money to fight this despicable war, guess who's pockets thier gonna tap then. Just for the record, i'm a republican, not a neo-con and not a leftist, i'm a realist.

AllThingsComic

01-14-2008, 02:27 PM

One more thing, what's gonna happen when it comes time to pay back China and the Saudis, and we don't have the money? Now we have to fund a war and pay an even bigger debt then we already have.

cookiva

01-14-2008, 03:02 PM

Good for you. :up: If more people actually looked into third parties, instead of pigeon-holeing themselves into either a Rep or Dem, we might have some honest politicans and not so many disenfranchised voters.

What if you truely believe in either of those parties? Its not their fault.

SuBe

01-14-2008, 03:11 PM

I'm an american...I have a job, a home, my liberty is just fine....its that propaganda from the left that is really hurting people....i am actually better off today than i was 5 years ag0
Everybody is, most people don't realize it.

AllThingsComic

01-14-2008, 03:19 PM

Everybody is, most people don't realize it.

I don't care about myself, you or anybody, I'm worried about my kids and thier kids and your kids. They are the ones who are gonna feel the real effects of all this.

bored

01-15-2008, 12:24 AM

Ron Paul will never be president because most of the people who know about him just know that his supporters are annoying.

AllThingsComic

01-15-2008, 08:22 AM

bell110

01-15-2008, 12:39 PM

What if you truely believe in either of those parties? Its not their fault.

If you truely fall into either of those, that's fine. But, alot of people don't. They vote for who they are told to vote for.

Ron Paul will never be president because most of the people who know about him just know that his supporters are annoying.

To be fair, most presidential candidate supporters are annoying.

bored

01-15-2008, 04:26 PM

Oh well if caring enough about mine and the rest of the children and thier children is annoying, so be it. At least Paul voters are passionate and not just sheep following the rest of the herd just because some sheepdog is herding us all into one pen.

You can care without openly defacing everything with another candidate's name on it. You can care without calling anyone who disagrees with any minor aspect of his platform "ignorant", or "a sheep", or any other thing I've heard from the Paulites that abound at KU, where I go to school. His supporters that I've come into contact with annoy me beyond words. They accept everything they hear from him without question, and tell it to others like it is gospel. And then they have the nerve to call others "sheep".

AllThingsComic

01-16-2008, 09:08 AM

I take everything I read or hear with a grain of salt and I have always just voted for my party because it was "my party" look what that got me, 8 years of war and America going to pot.

Kel

01-16-2008, 09:25 AM

You can care without openly defacing everything with another candidate's name on it. You can care without calling anyone who disagrees with any minor aspect of his platform "ignorant", or "a sheep", or any other thing I've heard from the Paulites that abound at KU, where I go to school. His supporters that I've come into contact with annoy me beyond words. They accept everything they hear from him without question, and tell it to others like it is gospel. And then they have the nerve to call others "sheep".

Well hell bored, that happens here on almost a minute by minute basis........I was told I had blind folds on a few days ago, and I have't even made a decision yet because its still an open field to me....:huh: BTW, it was because I disagreed with the guy and his generalizations.....Thats just how politics is....

CorpusBlack

01-16-2008, 09:31 AM

Ron Paul will never be president because most of the people who know about him just know that his supporters are annoying.

I hope MySpace implements that rule they were talking about where you can block certain users bulletins. :up: I'm more for Ron Paul than anyone else at this point, as he supports the FairTax, but the vast majority of his supporters are ridiculous and only backing him because their friends think he's cool. Ask one a question and they'll respond with a YouTube video or "...because he's the man! Yeah!"

AllThingsComic

01-16-2008, 10:04 AM

BlackLantern

01-16-2008, 11:04 AM

I don't bombard anyone with my political views. I don't refer anyone to youtube or try and get them to donate any money. I studied up on Dr. Paul and what he stands for and brings to his presidential election bid, and his ideals match mine 100%. When someone says all Ron Paul supporters are nutbags and annoying and all that, I take offense. I have conducted myself pretty well with all I have debated on the Ron Paul matter, I think anyway. People have brought up subjects like Dr. Paul is a joke and just a court jester and when I brought up important issues he stood for and asked why would this person say he was comical, I did not get any legitmate reasons he was called those names.

Let me clarify my reasons for calling Ron a court jester. I was talking about his perception through out the rest of the Republican party....as far as any of the GOP or any of the real candidates are concerned, he is a ****ing clown shoe and is simply taking up space...as far as the newsletters are concerned, my opinion is that Ron had full knowledge of what they said and is simply trying to cover his racist arse

AllThingsComic

01-16-2008, 11:36 AM

But the entire race, both republican and democratic party is one big circus. I still see no reason for him being a joke, what political reasons are there, besides the so called preception of him? What proposal has he brought forth to actually qualify him as a jester? In my opinion, out of all these morons running for President, he's the only one who is actually saying something.

BlackLantern

01-16-2008, 11:42 AM

In this circus, as you call it, perception is reality.....People view Ron as being "out there" already, so even when he presents good, valid ideas, which he has....no one is really going to listen

AllThingsComic

01-16-2008, 01:24 PM

I don't really think people see him as out there as so much as not listening to the ideals and intricacies behind his ideas. They only here "Paul wants to do this" and "Paul wants to do that", but can't get past the idea and listen to the reasons for it. The majority of people merely dismiss him without even truly knowing what is going on and that's the only reason I say sheep, please do not take that as a direct insult at you, that's not my intention.

bored

01-16-2008, 01:25 PM

Well hell bored, that happens here on almost a minute by minute basis........I was told I had blind folds on a few days ago, and I have't even made a decision yet because its still an open field to me....:huh: BTW, it was because I disagreed with the guy and his generalizations.....Thats just how politics is....

That's no excuse. Most of the "Dr. Paul" fans I've met in person take every negative aspect of partisan/campaign politics to an incredibly immature extreme.

AllThingsComic

01-16-2008, 01:27 PM

I truly do not believe Dr. Paul is a racist in any way shape or form. I am usually a pretty good judge of character and I just do not get that vibe from him.

DACrowe

01-16-2008, 03:09 PM

Aw, nuts and here I thought we were gonna go back to the Industrial Revolution days if he won....child labor was so close to returning.

<Que insults to liberals.>

It is very easy to pretend to be a libertarian.

teh Puffy

01-17-2008, 01:15 AM

What proposal has he brought forth to actually qualify him as a jester? In my opinion, out of all these morons running for President, he's the only one who is actually saying something.

Sorry, but the JOKE is something that goes like this. A goverment shouldnt tell you where your child should go to school. You as a parent know where your kid needs to go to school. No that to me is a pure fning joke simply put. If your telling me the goverment doesnt know what a kid needs to be educated on and where, but a parent does(half of americas parents rarely see there children) but they know whats best. Why not leave it up to the kid. Say he starts school when he can rationally make a discission on what he wants to do at say like age 16. He begins Kindergarden lives at home until almost 40 when hes done with college. You cant tell me govt doesnt know whats best but a parent does, cause its their child. Only the child knows whats best for him. Simply put.

His lowering of taxes is a joke as well. I dont deserve to have the same tax as someone making millions more than I do. He they need to increase taxes for those who are classified above middle class and keep taxes fine for middle class and lower.

A joke to say we need a military to man our boreders 24.7. from sea to shining sea from canada north to mexico south. Thats where a military belongs. No where else. The man needs to shut up. Military needs to be spread out, but this country does not need men on a beach watching for an invasion 24.7 for years to come.:sleepy:

bell110

01-17-2008, 04:24 AM

Sorry, but the JOKE is something that goes like this. A goverment shouldnt tell you where your child should go to school. You as a parent know where your kid needs to go to school. No that to me is a pure fning joke simply put. If your telling me the goverment doesnt know what a kid needs to be educated on and where, but a parent does(half of americas parents rarely see there children) but they know whats best. Why not leave it up to the kid. Say he starts school when he can rationally make a discission on what he wants to do at say like age 16. He begins Kindergarden lives at home until almost 40 when hes done with college. You cant tell me govt doesnt know whats best but a parent does, cause its their child. Only the child knows whats best for him. Simply put.

His lowering of taxes is a joke as well. I dont deserve to have the same tax as someone making millions more than I do. He they need to increase taxes for those who are classified above middle class and keep taxes fine for middle class and lower.

A joke to say we need a military to man our boreders 24.7. from sea to shining sea from canada north to mexico south. Thats where a military belongs. No where else. The man needs to shut up. Military needs to be spread out, but this country does not need men on a beach watching for an invasion 24.7 for years to come.:sleepy:

Wow, you are really clueless :(

bell110

01-17-2008, 04:26 AM

bell110

01-17-2008, 04:27 AM

That's no excuse. Most of the "Dr. Paul" fans I've met in person take every negative aspect of partisan/campaign politics to an incredibly immature extreme.

Not voteing for him because of what his "fans" do is no excuse either.

bell110

01-17-2008, 04:37 AM

Let me clarify my reasons for calling Ron a court jester. I was talking about his perception through out the rest of the Republican party....as far as any of the GOP or any of the real candidates are concerned, he is a ****ing clown shoe and is simply taking up space...as far as the newsletters are concerned, my opinion is that Ron had full knowledge of what they said and is simply trying to cover his racist arse

Actually, he isn't a clown to the Republicans, he is a real threat to the neo-con agenda. It's no laughing matter to them. Of course they will play him off as a "joke" to keep his perception off for the media. Seriously, if more people know about HIM instead of what the media portrays him to be, more people would like him. Why do you think he's the "darling" of the internet? Think abou it.

AllThingsComic

01-17-2008, 08:22 AM

Thank you Bell, I need not say anymore for both your replies were eloquent and hit the nail on the head.

BlackLantern

01-17-2008, 09:52 AM

Actually, he isn't a clown to the Republicans, he is a real threat to the neo-con agenda. It's no laughing matter to them. Of course they will play him off as a "joke" to keep his perception off for the media. Seriously, if more people know about HIM instead of what the media portrays him to be, more people would like him. Why do you think he's the "darling" of the internet? Think abou it.

because the internet is such a great barometer of character, social responsibility, and integrity. Bottom line, Ron will never be president.....I doubt he would even get a cabinet post.

AllThingsComic

01-17-2008, 01:58 PM

Kel

01-17-2008, 02:14 PM

The bottom line is, the gov't runs all the media tv, radio, and newspapers and Ron Paul does not do well in them. The internet is basically the only domain left as the voice of the people, and there he shines. Isn't there something peculiar about that?

?????????? :huh: :huh: :huh:

So, why is it that radio tends to be more conservative, and TV tends to be more liberal?????? If what you say is true, then why is "all" of the media not swinging more to the right, when in fact, it tends to swing to the left.

StorminNorman

01-17-2008, 02:17 PM

The bottom line is, the gov't runs all the media tv, radio, and newspapers and Ron Paul does not do well in them. The internet is basically the only domain left as the voice of the people, and there he shines. Isn't there something peculiar about that?

Because when I think "Mainstream Media" the first thing I think of is "Puppet of President Bush".

This is exactly why people don't like Ron Paul fans (this coming from a man with great respect for Dr. Paul).

AllThingsComic

01-17-2008, 03:29 PM

I'm not saying anything that isn't already well known.

StorminNorman

01-17-2008, 03:30 PM

I'm not saying anything that isn't already well known.

The Government does not control the Media. The Media handcuffs the Government.

AllThingsComic

01-17-2008, 03:36 PM

The Government does not control the Media. The Media handcuffs the Government.

I read the paper everyday, I see nothing of Pauls money bombs, no editorials, not even a single column on his stand. The news, forget it even less. You hear all about Guilianis decline, but never that Paul has him beat, just Guiliani drops to 5th place behind Romney McCain and Huckabee. Cnn is basically the only channel to even mention his name.

AllThingsComic

01-17-2008, 03:38 PM

What annoys me even more is when he's referred as the youtube sensation. They cannot even mention him without that phrase in front of his name.

StorminNorman

01-17-2008, 03:46 PM

I read the paper everyday, I see nothing of Pauls money bombs, no editorials, not even a single column on his stand. The news, forget it even less. You hear all about Guilianis decline, but never that Paul has him beat, just Guiliani drops to 5th place behind Romney McCain and Huckabee. Cnn is basically the only channel to even mention his name.

I listen to Cable News, Talk Radio - Ron Paul's Money bombs are mentioned frequently. In fact I hear about Ron Paul on the news more often than I even here Ron Paul fans complaining hes NOT on the news.

He was on Meet the Press, a full hour on Glenn Beck, etc. etc.

bored

01-17-2008, 09:08 PM

He was on Leno the other week, too.

bored

01-17-2008, 09:09 PM

Not voteing for him because of what his "fans" do is no excuse either.

Why not? If this is the group that supports him, and I can't begin to relate to them, what does "Dr. Paul" offer me?

bunk

01-17-2008, 09:24 PM

Ron Paul rocks.

http://fc02.deviantart.com/fs24/i/2008/007/f/e/Ron_Paul_by_Bunk2.jpg

Addendum

01-17-2008, 09:46 PM

The bottom line is, the gov't runs all the media tv, radio, and newspapers and Ron Paul does not do well in them.

The only radio and tv stations that could be considered "government run" are National Public Radio, Public Television (since they receive some funding from the government, the rest is supported by listeners, viewers and local business) and the radio and tv divisions of the Armed Services.

I'm not aware of a newspaper being run by the government, though I think there is something the government publishes which collects news articles from a variety of papers for the conveinence of the elected officials.

BlackLantern

01-17-2008, 09:46 PM

Ron just needs to quit the race and take all that money he raised and go on vacation.......

teh Puffy

01-17-2008, 09:53 PM

?????????? :huh: :huh: :huh:

So, why is it that radio tends to be more conservative, and TV tends to be more liberal?????? If what you say is true, then why is "all" of the media not swinging more to the right, when in fact, it tends to swing to the left.

Really I am tired of hearing all this crap about the man never doing good through media outlets, but he shines on the internet and thats because the goverment runs the media outlets. You know he could forfit some of his donations he is getting by the millions as one supporter said elsewhere and put it out there then, with a paper stating such facts. Instead we get a bunch of nuts who support this horrible man, by saying its a medias election nothing else. Media is controling you. You dont know anything unless its media driven.

Like those people who say we have it bad here for our offices. Yet when you mention how bad in other countries are you are told its just media propaganda. Like they have been there cause as far as they can see they see the same shizzle i see everyday.

teh Puffy

01-17-2008, 09:58 PM

Oh you dont believe american children dont see there parents. You really think parents are the best answer for there children. Some baby their children and say its okay you dont have to do that. At least with a goverment education, you get an education. Half of american parents dont see there child more than 2 hours a day. They come home from work while the kid was in school. They eat dinner maybe catch a television show or some news, then its off to bed. No family quality in this country. So how does a parent know whats best for there child, they know as much as the goverment, therefore the issue isnt broken. Its simply there for you to get an education.

AllThingsComic

01-18-2008, 07:57 AM

^^^^okaaaay:whatever:

Mr Sparkle

01-18-2008, 02:57 PM

The Government does not control the Media. The Media handcuffs the Government.

you don't really believe that do you?:huh:

Memphis Slim

01-19-2008, 03:35 PM

Ron Paul is a nut.......

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bzFtISty8hE&feature=related

bell110

01-21-2008, 01:06 PM

Why not? If this is the group that supports him, and I can't begin to relate to them, what does "Dr. Paul" offer me?

Because you're supposed to vote on issues. If you don't like where he stands, that's one thing. Not voting for him because of some "fans" is like not voting for Obama on the soul reason because he's black. Or not voting for a candidate because the KKK support them. I don't know where you live, but I don't see crazy Ron Paul fans. As a matter of fact, I've seen people who normally don't vote actually consider voting for him alone.

Ron just needs to quit the race and take all that money he raised and go on vacation.......

No, he needs to stick it out to the end, then when he loses, become the Libertarian cadidate.

Ron Paul is a nut.......

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bzFtISty8hE&feature=related

Says the guy who supports torture :p

cookiva

01-21-2008, 01:11 PM

Ron Paul is a nut.......

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bzFtISty8hE&feature=related

Dont you think that its OK for us to torture other human beings. Isn't that the most anti-christian thing you could do??

Kel

01-21-2008, 01:17 PM

Really I am tired of hearing all this crap about the man never doing good through media outlets, but he shines on the internet and thats because the goverment runs the media outlets. You know he could forfit some of his donations he is getting by the millions as one supporter said elsewhere and put it out there then, with a paper stating such facts. Instead we get a bunch of nuts who support this horrible man, by saying its a medias election nothing else. Media is controling you. You dont know anything unless its media driven.

Like those people who say we have it bad here for our offices. Yet when you mention how bad in other countries are you are told its just media propaganda. Like they have been there cause as far as they can see they see the same shizzle i see everyday.

Why did you quote me????? Your post had nothing to do with what I said.

cookiva

01-21-2008, 01:23 PM

He loves you...

The Senator

01-21-2008, 01:27 PM

I think the direction in which media swings depends on the political situation in the country.

In the late 1990s, television and radio seemed to swing right. Everyone was jumping over the Clinton impeachment hearings, because they wanted to see the first President impeached.

During the 2000 election, television went left, while radio stayed right. Even though I was a kid, I sort of knew this, because every media outlet on TV seemed to scrutinize Bush for his drinking, drug use and random swearing. Meanwhile, Al Gore acted like a pompous jerk during the debates, and the pundits declared him the winner despite his lack of tact.

Following 9/11, everything went right. From the terror alert to anthrax to the duct tape crisis, the media followed every waking minute of the 9/11 aftermath and virtually promoted the idea of going into Afghanistan. As far as I can remember, the media seemed to love the idea of going into Iraq, too. It was also during this time that Fox News became the number one cable news network.

In 2004, radio stayed right, TV started to lean left... but John Kerry seemed to gain more scrutiny than George W. Bush on a daily basis.

Of course, following the 2004 election, TV went left, while radio saw a bit of a shift (Air America debuted in 2004, but didn't become 'big' until 2005). Then again, Rush Limbaugh was still blabbering, making fun of Michael J. Fox and whatnot.

TV is currently left-leaning, and the radio is currently going back and forth.

I think it just depends on the current state of affairs, and that no one media stays biased towards one side.

cookiva

01-21-2008, 02:22 PM

Kel

01-21-2008, 05:19 PM

I simply watch CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, PBS, and make decisions, and form my decisions on my own.

The Only Woj

01-22-2008, 05:51 PM

Ron Paul is a nut.......

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bzFtISty8hE&feature=related

in relation to that Fox News debate ...

Brit Hulme asked him a completely different question regarding Iran.

The other candidates (Huckabee and Thompson) both talked about killing them. Huckabee mentioned them if they made one more "step" being blown apart and Thompson made mention of sending them to see the virgins they talk about (that's Al Qaeda you ****ing moron, not the Iraqi military).

Paul accurately brought up information that there was still issues determining where the audio came from, and what the true details of the incident were. yet the other candidates had no problem mentioning that we would blow them apart. AND he made sure to mention that those dinky speed boats weren't a legitimate threat to our giant, heavily armed warships in the vicinity.

WhatsHisFace

01-22-2008, 06:01 PM

I simply watch CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, PBS, and make decisions, and form my decisions on my own.

If you're watching the news, your decisions are made for you. News is so one-sided it's disgusting.

gdw

01-22-2008, 06:11 PM

With Ron Paul basically being Libertarian, he would be for decriminalizing all illegal substances, as each individual is in control of their own life and can do what they want as long as it doesn't take away from the rights of other individuals.

If Ron Paul had his way, it would be taxed to fit within the FairTax system, which he supports. However, even if you can buy it in a store where you pay tax, who is going to stop Joe Blow from growing it and selling it as he does now. With it being decriminalized, the law would just slap you on the wrist. And that's even if cops give a sh-t about it at that point.

Exactly, just like the end of prohibition did nothing to stop Joe Blow, and the mob, from brewing and selling their own alcohol.
I mean, they are still doing it today. I never go to a liqueur store for my booze when I can get it from Johnny, my local vodka dealer.

Kel

01-22-2008, 06:11 PM

If you're watching the news, your decisions are made for you. News is so one-sided it's disgusting.

I watch the news, I read 3 newspapers a day, and I watch ALL of the debates......

AND, I use the brain God gave me.........

Its called discernment and intelligence.....I use it every once in awhile.

bell110

01-24-2008, 03:41 PM

in relation to that Fox News debate ...

Brit Hulme asked him a completely different question regarding Iran.

The other candidates (Huckabee and Thompson) both talked about killing them. Huckabee mentioned them if they made one more "step" being blown apart and Thompson made mention of sending them to see the virgins they talk about (that's Al Qaeda you ****ing moron, not the Iraqi military).

Paul accurately brought up information that there was still issues determining where the audio came from, and what the true details of the incident were. yet the other candidates had no problem mentioning that we would blow them apart. AND he made sure to mention that those dinky speed boats weren't a legitimate threat to our giant, heavily armed warships in the vicinity.

Yes, Ron Paul, the thinking man's president.

JokerLedger

01-28-2008, 04:41 AM

I watch the news, I read 3 newspapers a day, and I watch ALL of the debates......

AND, I use the brain God gave me.........

Its called discernment and intelligence.....I use it every once in awhile.

Cool... now only if you did some research to add to that......

Zero_Vault

02-05-2008, 12:33 PM

jaguarr

02-05-2008, 12:35 PM

And then you posted in the wrong forum. You're 0 for 2, chief. :up:

jag

Fran

02-05-2008, 12:37 PM

Congratulations! :huh:

Matt

02-05-2008, 01:00 PM

I'd say the bigger question is "How can he win when after today it is pretty much a statistical impossibility?"

ShadowBoxing

02-05-2008, 01:56 PM

I'd say the biggest question is "why do people keep supporting this guy if he's so obviously unelectable and thinks America can be run just like it was when was an isolatist country with an agricultural based economy and rights were only held by white male landowners".

MaskedManJRK

02-05-2008, 02:00 PM

Zero_Vault

02-05-2008, 02:05 PM

What are you saying?

Isn't that what normal American citizens want?

NO TAX. Less government meddling in our affairs, and foreign countries?

Also, Paul clearly said our own policies is what caused 9-11, and over 90% of SHH members believes this, including me.

ShadowBoxing

02-05-2008, 02:11 PM

What are you saying?

Isn't that what normal American citizens want?

NO TAX. Less government meddling in our affairs, and foreign countries?
The normal American citizen doesn't understand domestic and foreign politics and the economy well enough to understand it, or know what it needs. A lot of what "they" want things, ultimately, would be very bad for this country as a whole
Also, Paul clearly said our own policies is what caused 9-11, and over 90% of SHH members believes this, including me.
...And thank God SHH isn't in charge of this country.

hippie_hunter

02-05-2008, 02:29 PM

I was debating on whether to vote for Paul or McCain. I figured since McCain had New York in the bag over Romney, I decided to vote for Paul who falls along more along with my beliefs of smaller government, very, very little taxation, a less interventionalist foreign policy, etc.

StorminNorman

02-05-2008, 03:10 PM

StorminNorman

02-05-2008, 03:11 PM

Actually, that title would go to Kucinich. :csad:

Didn't Kucinich claim that our soldiers were shooting civilians in Afghanistan?

StorminNorman

02-05-2008, 03:13 PM

But how is he going to win, when no one knows who he is?

He's the most honest, kindest, open hearted man. I could just see from the look in his eyes, and the way he interact with other folks, so I voted for him.

Unlike Romney, Huckabee, Mccain, Obama, or Clinton.

While many Ron Paul supporters like to claim the "no one knows him" card - I don't think this is incredibly accurate.

Much of the VOTING public knows him. Most simply think he is a loon - especially among Republicans.

That being said I have a very soft spot for Ron Paul.

Venom'sDad

02-05-2008, 03:16 PM

The normal American citizen doesn't understand domestic and foreign politics and the economy well enough to understand it, or know what it needs. A lot of what "they" want things, ultimately, would be very bad for this country as a whole

You really under-estimate the intelligence of the normal American citizen, but I understand what you are trying to say.

Personally, I think a number of American citizens are dis-enchanted with politics... hence becoming more apathetic.

The Senator

02-05-2008, 03:19 PM

You really under-estimate the intelligence of the normal American citizen, but I understand what you are trying to say.

Personally, I think a number of American citizens are dis-enchanted with politics... hints becoming more apathetic.

Most Americans are apathetic when it comes to politics. That's why voter turnout is so low.

jaguarr

02-05-2008, 03:21 PM

You really under-estimate the intelligence of the normal American citizen, but I understand what you are trying to say.

Personally, I think a number of American citizens are dis-enchanted with politics... hints becoming more apathetic.

I think the word you are looking for is "hence". :up:

jag

Venom'sDad

02-05-2008, 03:22 PM

I think the word you are looking for is "hence". :up:

jag

Thanks... you are correct.

hippie_hunter

02-05-2008, 03:23 PM

I, my friend, am still amazed that with those beliefs you could still support McCain.

I support McCain also because even though I am opposed to the Iraq War, I feel that he can bring some success there. I want someone who has proven themselves to work with the opposition. I support his ideas on tax cuts, tax cuts are great but spending must be cut too. I support his views on the enviroment. I support his views on immigration. I support his oppositition to universal health care. He has common sense when refering to Pakistan. And even though I support a less interventionalist foreign policy, I can see the need for being a hawk at times.

StorminNorman

02-05-2008, 03:29 PM

I support McCain also because even though I am opposed to the Iraq War, I feel that he can bring some success there. I want someone who has proven themselves to work with the opposition. I support his ideas on tax cuts, tax cuts are great but spending must be cut too. I support his views on the enviroment. I support his views on immigration. I support his oppositition to universal health care. He has common sense when refering to Pakistan. And even though I support a less interventionalist foreign policy, I can see the need for being a hawk at times.

I know, I know. I just found it funny that you mentioned "smaller government, very, very little taxation, a less interventionalist foreign policy, etc." when McCain has been for more Government regulation, voted against the Bush Tax Cuts and is the most hawkish of the bunch ;) :D

MaskedManJRK

02-05-2008, 03:31 PM

Didn't Kucinich claim that our soldiers were shooting civilians in Afghanistan?

Not that I remember. His big thing was putting bills to Congress to impeach Bush and Cheney.

From what I've seen Kucinich is similar to Paul in most of their platforms (the only differences I can really think of is Kucinich wanted to allow gay marriage and had his own Universal Health Care plan), so much so that they said Kucinich would accept a VP seat if Paul gets the nomination.

jaguarr

02-05-2008, 03:32 PM

I support McCain also because even though I am opposed to the Iraq War, I feel that he can bring some success there. I want someone who has proven themselves to work with the opposition. I support his ideas on tax cuts, tax cuts are great but spending must be cut too. I support his views on the enviroment. I support his views on immigration. I support his oppositition to universal health care. He has common sense when refering to Pakistan. And even though I support a less interventionalist foreign policy, I can see the need for being a hawk at times.

Thanks for letting us watch you talk yourself into supporting McCain even though he basically goes against so many of your principles.

jag

hippie_hunter

02-05-2008, 03:43 PM

He isn't simply not opposed to the Iraq War - but he has no problems staying there forever. He is also the most aggressive candidate in dealing with Iran and other hot spots.
As I said, I know that he heavily supports the Iraq War, but I feel that McCain can at least bring success in Iraq. He gets it that the military needs to control military actions, not politicians. He knows that the Bush Administration and Donald Rumsfeld f**ked up in Iraq and called for a new strategy which is showing some success.

His 100 years comment is taken out of context:

Make it a hundred. We've been in Japan for 60 years, we've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That'd be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That's fine with me. I hope it will be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping, and motivating people every single day.

His plan is far better than Obama's of leaving 5,000 troops pretty much for the slaughter.

His history has not been of tax cuts - he voted against the Bush tax cuts for example.
The reason why he voted against the Bush tax cuts was because it did not include a decreases in spending. He voted against the tax cuts again because of the deficit.

He says that the Bush tax cuts should be permanent, but spending should still be cut. If you cut taxes you have to cut spending. It's common sense.

What are your views on Immigration?
I support McCain's ideas of securing the border. I support putting a lot of immigrants on some path to citizenship because it's downright impossible to deport the vast majority of them and the fact that the United States is a nation of immigrants. I support a guest worker program to help promote legal immigration. And frankly, most illegals take the jobs that me and you don't want. I also feel that instead of targeting the immigrants we should target the employers that willingly and knowingly hire illegal immigrants

BlackLantern

02-05-2008, 03:44 PM

IMO McCain will be winning....america is not progressive enough to put a woman or a minority in office

hippie_hunter

02-05-2008, 03:44 PM

Thanks for letting us watch you talk yourself into supporting McCain even though he basically goes against so many of your principles.

jag

I should also add that I hate Romney, Obama, and Clinton. And I grew very uncomfortable with Huckabee after his Bible and Constitution comments.

jaguarr

02-05-2008, 03:48 PM

I should also add that I hate Romney, Obama, and Clinton. And I grew very uncomfortable with Huckabee after his Bible and Constitution comments.

At this point, McCain has become Bush Light. Not my favorite brew, to be honest.

jag

kane9321

02-05-2008, 03:52 PM

Thanks for letting us watch you talk yourself into supporting McCain even though he basically goes against so many of your principles.

jag

pretty much

bell110

02-05-2008, 05:04 PM

But how is he going to win, when no one knows who he is?

He's the most honest, kindest, open hearted man. I could just see from the look in his eyes, and the way he interact with other folks, so I voted for him.

Unlike Romney, Huckabee, Mccain, Obama, or Clinton.

You are a god among men.

What are you saying?

Isn't that what normal American citizens want?

NO TAX. Less government meddling in our affairs, and foreign countries?

Also, Paul clearly said our own policies is what caused 9-11, and over 90% of SHH members believes this, including me.

That's probably what most Americans want, they'd just rather ***** about things than actually do something about it.

The normal American citizen doesn't understand domestic and foreign politics and the economy well enough to understand it, or know what it needs. A lot of what "they" want things, ultimately, would be very bad for this country as a whole

...And thank God SHH isn't in charge of this country.

The same could be said about normal American politicians.

While many Ron Paul supporters like to claim the "no one knows him" card - I don't think this is incredibly accurate.

Much of the VOTING public knows him. Most simply think he is a loon - especially among Republicans.

That being said I have a very soft spot for Ron Paul.

Unfortunatly, that's true. I do know a couple of people who don't vote, then they found out about Paul, they actually thought about voting just because of him :)

Much of the voting public just want the status quo. They'll vote party lines and would rather "vote for the devil you know than the devil you don't." :whatever:

As I said, I know that he heavily supports the Iraq War, but I feel that McCain can at least bring success in Iraq. He gets it that the military needs to control military actions, not politicians. He knows that the Bush Administration and Donald Rumsfeld f**ked up in Iraq and called for a new strategy which is showing some success.

His 100 years comment is taken out of context:

His plan is far better than Obama's of leaving 5,000 troops pretty much for the slaughter.

The reason why he voted against the Bush tax cuts was because it did not include a decreases in spending. He voted against the tax cuts again because of the deficit.

He says that the Bush tax cuts should be permanent, but spending should still be cut. If you cut taxes you have to cut spending. It's common sense.

I support McCain's ideas of securing the border. I support putting a lot of immigrants on some path to citizenship because it's downright impossible to deport the vast majority of them and the fact that the United States is a nation of immigrants. I support a guest worker program to help promote legal immigration. And frankly, most illegals take the jobs that me and you don't want. I also feel that instead of targeting the immigrants we should target the employers that willingly and knowingly hire illegal immigrants

Me and you might not want the, but SOME American would take it, for the right price. It's not that immigants to jobs Americans don't want, they do it cheaper. But, that being said, yes, the solution is targeting employers who hire illegals.

At this point, McCain has become Bush Light. Not my favorite brew, to be honest.

jag

McCain > Bush. Deep down, I think he's just pandering to the same base that won Bush the presidency twice. After he gets elected, he'll become the 2000 McCain that so many people say they liked. He's more competent than Bush IMO.

jaguarr

02-05-2008, 05:07 PM

McCain > Bush. Deep down, I think he's just pandering to the same base that won Bush the presidency twice. After he gets elected, he'll become the 2000 McCain that so many people say they liked. He's more competent than Bush IMO.

Color me doubtful as hell and not holding my breath. And anyway, a chimpanzee is more competent that Bush (and more humane and less selfish to boot).

jag

Matt

02-05-2008, 05:28 PM

Actually, that title would go to Kucinich. :csad:

Not really. Kucinich betrayed everyone he has "fought for" the second he gave his Iowa delegates to a pro-free trade candidate. I've given Kucinich money in the past and supported his campaigns. I feel like I deserve answers as do all of his supporters. There has not been a more vocal opponent of free trade and yet he gave his delegates to one of its most vocal supporters.

StorminNorman

02-05-2008, 05:38 PM

At this point, McCain has become Bush Light. Not my favorite brew, to be honest.

jag

The only real similarities between Bush and McCain are their strong stances on terror and weak stances on immigration.

BlackLantern

02-05-2008, 05:40 PM

I wonder what happens after the election...will Hillary finish out her term and leave politics??

Matt

02-05-2008, 05:49 PM

I wonder what happens after the election...will Hillary finish out her term and leave politics??

I wonder. We all know the only reason that she went for senate is so that she could campaign for the presidency. Wouldn't suprise me for her to retire afterwards.

hippie_hunter

02-05-2008, 06:06 PM

I wonder what happens after the election...will Hillary finish out her term and leave politics??

I hope so, I am so ashamed to have that carpetbagging b***h being my Senator.

BlackLantern

02-05-2008, 06:09 PM

I hope so, I am so ashamed to have that carpetbagging b***h being my Senator.

Hmm..HH...why don't you tell us how you really feel??....don't sugarcoat your feelings...

hippie_hunter

02-05-2008, 06:16 PM

Hmm..HH...why don't you tell us how you really feel??....don't sugarcoat your feelings...

Alright. The truth is that I'm just jealous that Bill married such a beautiful woman. I'm angry that he cheated on her repeatedly yet she still stays with him, ruining my chances to be with her. I love you Hillary. You complete me. I want to be with you and be inside you :csad: :heart:

BlackLantern

02-05-2008, 06:18 PM

Alright. The truth is that I'm just jealous that Bill married such a beautiful woman. I'm angry that he cheated on her repeatedly yet she still stays with him, ruining my chances to be with her. I love you Hillary. You complete me. I want to be with you and be inside you :csad: :heart:

Touching....really....I preferred "carpetbagging b**ch"

hippie_hunter

02-05-2008, 06:19 PM

Touching....really....I preferred "carpetbagging b**ch"

She's my carpetbagging lover.

BlackLantern

02-05-2008, 06:21 PM

Im sure Obama will be around the political world for a bit....he will probably run again in 2012

jaguarr

02-05-2008, 06:22 PM

Alright. The truth is that I'm just jealous that Bill married such a beautiful woman. I'm angry that he cheated on her repeatedly yet she still stays with him, ruining my chances to be with her. I love you Hillary. You complete me. I want to be with you and be inside you :csad: :heart:

Even joking about that endangers your right to have a penis. :down

jag

BlackLantern

02-05-2008, 06:26 PM

LOL jag...but elizabeth kucinich is a whole other story....I want to do naughty naughty things to her....I dont know what Dennis did to get her...

ShadowBoxing

02-05-2008, 07:57 PM

The same could be said about normal American politicians.

Perhaps. Then again, if Ron Paul understood politics, or how to come up with ideas that didn't make him sound like a lunatic, he might not be running dead last in the polls.

Lobster Charlie

02-05-2008, 08:41 PM

Eh, I don't think he sounds like a lunatic. Everything he's been saying is absolutely true--and, put up against what we've been *conditioned to accept from our politicians*, it simply sounds "crazy." It's not.

bell110

02-06-2008, 04:37 AM

Color me doubtful as hell and not holding my breath. And anyway, a chimpanzee is more competent that Bush (and more humane and less selfish to boot).

jag

I am more than likely not going to vote for him, but I have faith that he would be a better president than all of the front runners.

I wonder what happens after the election...will Hillary finish out her term and leave politics??

If she wins, it will be a interesting. She will really show if America is ready for a female president. Personally, I think we are, just not in Hillary Clinton.

Im sure Obama will be around the political world for a bit....he will probably run again in 2012

Definitely, he's still young.

LOL jag...but elizabeth kucinich is a whole other story....I want to do naughty naughty things to her....I dont know what Dennis did to get her...

Money :waa: :cmad: :indy:

Perhaps. Then again, if Ron Paul understood politics, or how to come up with ideas that didn't make him sound like a lunatic, he might not be running dead last in the polls.

Americans like the status quo. They like buzz words and sound bits. If what you have to say is more than two sentences, no one wants to hear it. :(

AllThingsComic

02-06-2008, 02:03 PM

I don't get how Dr. Paul sounds like a lunatic? All he is saying is what most Americans having been saying for years, take care of home, mind our business and give America back to the people. What the hell is so crazy about that?

Denny67

02-06-2008, 02:13 PM

Perhaps. Then again, if Ron Paul understood politics, or how to come up with ideas that didn't make him sound like a lunatic, he might not be running dead last in the polls.

His poll placement has nothing to do with his message or ideas.
The media has controlled the outcome of this election from day one. Ron Paul has been ignored by design and the results are obvious.

In the last debate CNN gave Romney 26 minutes to speak and gave Ron Paul 6 minutes. That has been the norm since the debates have started. Hell Ron Paul had to fight just to be allowed to get on the first one. Both on Fox and CNN they have been called out on this by the ignored candidates and various watchdog groups and they just keep doing it. It is the height of arrogance and corruption, yet the brain dead zombies of this country fall right in line never questioning a thing.

That fact is there are a lot of people who agree with Ron Paul but many of his supporters are starting to feel that even with his strong message he can’t overcome his opponents, the media and the special interest money stacked against him.

Once again, in the real world… the bad guys always win.

AllThingsComic

02-06-2008, 02:24 PM

The people that get me the most are the ones who say, I like his ideas, but he has no chance of winning, so i'll vote for this guy. I want to pull what little hair I have left right outta my scalp.

Matt

02-06-2008, 02:32 PM

The people that get me the most are the ones who say, I like his ideas, but he has no chance of winning, so i'll vote for this guy. I want to pull what little hair I have left right outta my scalp.

Its true though. Its been proven time and time against America is a very MODERATE country at the moment. Paul is not that type. So even if a few people like his ideas but are unwilling to vote for him because he is unelectable, its not that big of a difference. Lets assume all those people voted for him. Maybe he would go from 4 to 10 %. Beelieve it or not, there are plenty of people who do not like Paul's ideas. People aren't simply not voting for him due to lack of media coverage or because they do not know who he is or thinks he can't win. People are not voting for him because he comes off as an extremist nut job who is not in sync with the values of most Americans.

AllThingsComic

02-06-2008, 02:49 PM

And just what are the "values" of most Americans? Because to me, I thought that was a country founded by the people and for the people, not big interest company gov't. Values, really? What are the values that the other politicians are bringing to the table? By the way, the people I was referring to are the people who want to vote for Paul, but don't think he has a chance. If everyone that thought that actually did vote for him, I think this race would be alot closer that it actually is.

bell110

02-06-2008, 03:04 PM

But, he's not a extremist nut job, that's just how the media portrays him. And if America is so moderate, why don't they vote that?

Matt

02-06-2008, 03:12 PM

And just what are the "values" of most Americans? Because to me, I thought that was a country founded by the people and for the people,

Exactly, and the people have spoken and they overwhelmingly do NOT want Ron Paul in office.

not big interest company gov't. Values, really? What are the values that the other politicians are bringing to the table? By the way, the people I was referring to are the people who want to vote for Paul, but don't think he has a chance. If everyone that thought that actually did vote for him, I think this race would be alot closer that it actually is.

I'm guessing maybe, if you are lucky, he would get a 5 to 10 % boost if people who won't vote for him because he has no chance voted for him. And that would hardly make the race much closer.

Matt

02-06-2008, 03:13 PM

But, he's not a extremist nut job, that's just how the media portrays him. And if America is so moderate, why don't they vote that?

He is an extremist. He is a radical constitutionalist. Now whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is up to you, but he is most definitely an extremist.

AllThingsComic

02-06-2008, 03:33 PM

If we would have followed the Constitution, we wouldn't be in all the bull***** we are in right now. If that is an extremist, then sign me up for the nuthouse!
All I am concerned about is my childrens future, and IN MY OPINION, Ron Paul is the only one out there trying make that possible. If we continue to fight this war that the American people did not choose to go into, we are going to collapse from within. The gov't is going to bankrupt this country to the point of no return, leaving our children and our childrens children and thier children paying for our mistakes.

Matt

02-06-2008, 03:36 PM

AllThingsComic

02-06-2008, 03:50 PM

I for the life of me can't understand why people think Ron Paul is an isolationist? Here is the Websters defenition of an isolationist:

: a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations
— iso·la·tion·ist \-sh(ə-)nist\ noun or adjective

Ron Paul is all for trading with foreign governments, would that not fall under economic relations? So because he wants to cut out all the beaurocracies and nation building and take care of his homeland, he's an isolationist? I cannot fathom how anyone can consider this extreme or lunacy? To make America strong and self dependant, and to protect our own borders and let us be free to make our own decisions, isn't this what this place was founded on? Isn't this why we have millions of people trying to sneak their way into our land and why our ancestors fought to get here? This isn't the same country our Grandparents died to get to.

Denny67

02-06-2008, 03:51 PM

Maybe you're right. I personally believe the consitution is a living document and should be seen as such. I believe that we can solve our financial problems and problems abroad without becoming an isolationist country.

You have brought up two separate topics here.
First off you are absolutely right. The Constitution is a living document but that means there are proper steps that need to be taken in order to change it and those changes should never be taken lightly as they have a huge impact on our rights as citizens.

Second I have not seen a single person suggest or condone an isolationist policy. This is a trumped up charge against the Paul campaign that has been disproved many times over. As he has stated, he wants open trade, communication, and tourism/travel with all countries. He (as many think) just does not feel it is out responsibility, place or right to police the world. When you look at the Paul foreign policy logically and suspend the rhetoric it is in fact the exact opposite of isolationism.

Isolationism is all encompassing and is based on the principal that you sever all political negations, exports and imports with outside courtiers. Nobody wants that nor does anybody think that is a realistic way of life in the modern world.

Denny67

02-06-2008, 04:05 PM

Exactly, and the people have spoken and they overwhelmingly do NOT want Ron Paul in office.

I'm guessing maybe, if you are lucky, he would get a 5 to 10 % boost if people who won't vote for him because he has no chance voted for him. And that would hardly make the race much closer.

And the media/corporate complex putting their own narrative on the entire election process has had nothing to do with how Americans are voting right? :whatever:

Matt

02-06-2008, 04:11 PM

And the media/corporate complex putting their own narrative on the entire election process has had nothing to do with how Americans are voting right? :whatever:

Its not your place to judge how or why people vote. People are living, thinking, things. If they wish to allow the media to think for them, than it is their choice as a citizen.

bunk

02-06-2008, 04:18 PM

There are nothing but Ron Paul signs where I live. No Hillary, Obama, McCain... It's kind of weird. I know there are plenty of Dems too, they're just waiting for a nominee I think.

jaguarr

02-06-2008, 04:24 PM

Its not your place to judge how or why people vote. People are living, thinking, things. If they wish to allow the media to think for them, than it is their choice as a citizen.

But it's also not his place to keep his mouth shut when he sees things that he disagrees with or things happening in the media that aren't on the up and up. That's why we have freedom of speech and he's certainly entitled to use it.

jag

Matt

02-06-2008, 04:26 PM

But it's also not his place to keep his mouth shut when he sees things that he disagrees with or things happening in the media that aren't on the up and up. That's why we have freedom of speech and he's certainly entitled to use it.

jag

Correct. I just find the mentality surrounding Paul supporters, that some how he was screwed out of the nomination, when the fact is...no one voted for him, plain and simple to be humorous.

Denny67

02-06-2008, 04:51 PM

Correct. I just find the mentality surrounding Paul supporters, that some how he was screwed out of the nomination, when the fact is...no one voted for him, plain and simple to be humorous.

So you are honestly saying that between talk radio, televised debates, news paper coverage, so on and so on that everything you have seen to date is just fine and dandy? That Obama, Clinton, McCain and Romney have not had the majority of the coverage and face time?
Nothing odd or imbalanced about the entire process. I mean if you say no that is fine. It is your personal observation and I am not going to try and convince you otherwise. If your answer is yes something seems very off (which IMO you should) you have to ask…

Why?
Who Benefits from this?
What does that say about us as a nation?
How far does this slippery slope take us?

The simple fact that you assert that it is not my place and be default “right” to disagree says a lot about you and your understanding about our freedoms as Americans.
Our perspective has slowly been changed in this country over the course of many years and our Constitution is being replaced be corporate policy. But all you have to do to silence anybody who points this fact out is label them a conspiracy theorist, radical or whack job and they immediately lose all credibly alone with their claim.

This in affect is what has happened with Ron Paul. Much like calling someone a child molester or a rapist, once the allegation is out there you are forever tainted. Most people will not look any further into a subject or an individual past the outlandish headlines. Hence perception is reality… Ron Paul is a radical, isolationist, racist, whacko… because the media and bloggers and the seriously misinformed say so.

This is what you get with a society of the "TV informed."

If you are willing to spend 65 min to get to the know the guy (even though it is too late) here ya go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

Here is a man who understands the social contract the people have with the Government in the form of the Constitution and he is an economist in a time of economic distress.

AllThingsComic

02-06-2008, 05:22 PM

Bravo Denny, you just summed up what I have been trying to put into words absolutely perfect.

BlackLantern

02-06-2008, 09:43 PM

well I believe Ron Paul is a rascist as seen in his "newsletters' whether or not he wrote them is irrelevant to me...his name is associated with them and thats all I need

Denny67

02-06-2008, 09:52 PM

well I believe Ron Paul is a rascist as seen in his "newsletters' whether or not he wrote them is irrelevant to me...his name is associated with them and thats all I need

I can’t argue with that any more than I can argue with people who truly believe the earth is 5000 years old or real racist who think their ethnic gene pool is some how superior to others.

In the end some people are going to believe what they believe regardless of the facts.

BlackLantern

02-06-2008, 09:55 PM

Denny67

02-06-2008, 10:06 PM

that and there is an office pool going as to when Ron will drop out of the race....I have the first week in August I believe....regardless of the newsletters..I'm not good with his whole semi-isolationist policy...we are living in a connected world now and we need to make those relationships better, acknowledge that other countries have say

If you could please explain his “semi-isolationist” policy if you can. I have been following Ron Paul for some time now and that keeps coming up and I have yet to ever hear him say or write or vote on anything that even comes close to supporting that accusation.

Oh unless you mean that he has stated that we should not assume the responsibility or have the right to police the world.

That tends to put a strain on relationships with other countries… or by “connected world” do you mean the US connecting its foot in the other countries collective asses at will?

They have a word for that… Empire.

BlackLantern

02-06-2008, 10:09 PM

I meant connected as in we trade with other countries, we import and export goods from other countries, Countries' economies are growing larger and larger (India, China so on)....to be honest I have taken a look at all the serious candidates, Ron included, and not one of them makes me believe they can be President

Lobster Charlie

02-07-2008, 12:48 AM

Lobster Charlie

02-07-2008, 12:53 AM

He is an extremist. He is a radical constitutionalist. Now whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is up to you, but he is most definitely an extremist.

If our country was founded with the constitution as it's backbone, how does that make a supporter of that document an "extremist?"

What's truly extreme is how far we've slipped from what the spirit of America is really all about. These days, it seems people just want to sit back and have big government sort out of all our problems for us while we watch our new HD DVDs and stuff our brains full of sports stats and celebrity gossip.

This country was founded by the people, for the people, and in order to keep it strong, there must a strain of vigilance coursing through our veins. That means keeping a constant eye on those people we elect as our leaders, and always fighting for our civil and individual liberties.

I'm by no means anywhere near perfect, and only recently I've come to understand a bit of what's been going on behind closed doors, and it disgusts me. Unlike a lot of my friends, I have no country to run away to once the ***** truly hits the fan, so these things begin to matter to me more and more.

I guess technically you're right, Matt. We've fallen so far from what our country once stood for, that it'd truly by "extreme" to follow the document that defines us as a nation.

AllThingsComic

02-07-2008, 07:59 AM

If our country was founded with the constitution as it's backbone, how does that make a supporter of that document an "extremist?"

What's truly extreme is how far we've slipped from what the spirit of America is really all about. These days, it seems people just want to sit back and have big government sort out of all our problems for us while we watch our new HD DVDs and stuff our brains full of sports stats and celebrity gossip.

This country was founded by the people, for the people, and in order to keep it strong, there must a strain of vigilance coursing through our veins. That means keeping a constant eye on those people we elect as our leaders, and always fighting for our civil and individual liberties.

I'm by no means anywhere near perfect, and only recently I've come to understand a bit of what's been going on behind closed doors, and it disgusts me. Unlike a lot of my friends, I have no country to run away to once the ***** truly hits the fan, so these things begin to matter to me more and more.

I guess technically you're right, Matt. We've fallen so far from what our country once stood for, that it'd truly by "extreme" to follow the document that defines us as a nation.

YES!! As I stated earlier, it's all about my kids thier kids and thier kids kids, and all the future generations for that matter that I am most worried about.

BlackLantern

02-07-2008, 08:11 AM

also the problem Ron has is the support he does have isnt centralized.....he might be the darling of the Information Supherhighway but his support is all over the place...

Super_Ludacris

02-07-2008, 08:17 AM

BlackLantern

02-07-2008, 08:22 AM

Maybe you should have thought about that before you wasted your vote on him.

ding ding ding....we have a winner

Darthphere

02-07-2008, 08:55 AM

So why are we still talking about this guy at all?

Malice

02-07-2008, 08:57 AM

personally I think he has some cool ideas, and then he has some ideas that are in left field. Ron Paul presents himself as a quack to me.
I fully expect him to be wearing his aluminum foil hat sometimes...

Like I said, though, he really does have some really good ideas...those I dont see right, to me, are REALLY wrong

AllThingsComic

02-07-2008, 08:59 AM

Such as Malice?

AllThingsComic

02-07-2008, 09:01 AM

Maybe you should have thought about that before you wasted your vote on him.

The only wasted vote is the one that isn't placed. Other than that, there is no wasted vote if you believe in the candidate.

Darthphere

02-07-2008, 09:01 AM

Such as Malice?

Why are you so confrontational? Then you ask why people complain about Paul supporters so much. I have never met a group of political supporters as confrontational and in your face as Ron Paul supporters.

AllThingsComic

02-07-2008, 09:03 AM

Confrontational???? He made a statement and I was just curious as to what they were? I love how this all goes down, I ask a question and i'm confrontational, wow.

Darthphere

02-07-2008, 09:04 AM

Confrontational???? He made a statement and I was just curious as to what they were? I love how this all goes down, I ask a question and i'm confrontational, wow.

You should really just step back and read all your responses in every thread that even mentions Ron Paul.

Malice

02-07-2008, 09:06 AM

I havent followed this conversation to much, but people picked on Zero_Vault for voting for Ron Paul.

I applaud him. I will NEVER criticize a person for voting who they believe can do that job. Good job Zero.

*Clap*

Why have I been brought into this? I voice my opinions...some a little off the wall, but none are generally disrespectful, granted the aluminum hat comment is probably the worse I have ever stated...

Someone explain.

AllThingsComic

02-07-2008, 09:07 AM

Darthphere

02-07-2008, 09:12 AM

I don't need to, Malice said some of his ideas are really wrong and I was just wondering which ones? Maybe Malice has seen something I didn't and can shed some light for me. I am open to new thoughts, unlike the people who say I am not voting for Paul because someone said he's a nut job.

You're really not. Anytime someone brings up something negative or at least something they think is negative) about Ron Paul, you brush it off with some lame retort. I mean, you were defending the racist content of his newsletter earlier. Seriously.

Malice

02-07-2008, 09:20 AM

I don't need to, Malice said some of his ideas are really wrong and I was just wondering which ones? Maybe Malice has seen something I didn't and can shed some light for me. I am open to new thoughts, unlike the people who say I am not voting for Paul because someone said he's a nut job.

I will be honest...
I cant remember, its early in the day...
I think some of his views of, lets just entirely pull out of Iraq...at this point, that would be just dumb...put the middle east into more chaos than it is now.
I agree, there is a point when we should be able to pull out, but not yet..

If I think of something I will post it.

AllThingsComic

02-07-2008, 09:20 AM

Seriously? Is that all you have is that dumbass newsletter? Yeah, I am open to new thoughts, I am capable listening to others and seeing thier take on a subject matter. Don't try and play me like i'm some kind of narrow minded idiot. I have listened to all candidates and Ron Paul is the one saying the things I want to hear. Plain and simple.

Darthphere

02-07-2008, 09:22 AM

AllThingsComic

02-07-2008, 09:45 AM

Let's just agree to disagree, have a nice day.

BlackLantern

02-07-2008, 09:54 AM

You're really not. Anytime someone brings up something negative or at least something they think is negative) about Ron Paul, you brush it off with some lame retort. I mean, you were defending the racist content of his newsletter earlier. Seriously.

I believe as long as a man votes it counts.....if you dont vote you dont get to complain. but as a black man, how am i supposed to dismiss those newsletters and support Ron....?? I understand he probably did not write them, but his name is attached to them

AllThingsComic

02-07-2008, 11:04 AM

I believe as long as a man votes it counts.....if you dont vote you dont get to complain. but as a black man, how am i supposed to dismiss those newsletters and support Ron....?? I understand he probably did not write them, but his name is attached to them

I completely understand your concern as a hispanic male. I forget which interview it was (I believe it was with Wolf Blitzer on CNN) where he spoke on this. I'm not going to give you the whole back story of the interview, but I believe, and this is just my opinion, that he explained it well and gave counter measures as to why that is the complete opposite of his nature.

BlackLantern

02-07-2008, 11:08 AM

I completely understand your concern as a hispanic male. I forget which interview it was (I believe it was with Wolf Blitzer on CNN) where he spoke on this. I'm not going to give you the whole back story of the interview, but I believe, and this is just my opinion, that he explained it well and gave counter measures as to why that is the complete opposite of his nature.

Interviews on CNN are softball fests, but that is a whole other thread. He could have given the most rational explanation ever and I still wouldnt have bought it. It just bothers me that we claim to be this advanced, civil society yet we depict different races in such horrid ways

Lobster Charlie

02-07-2008, 11:09 AM

The newsletters were already refuted by both Ron Paul and people close to him. Heck, the leader of the Austin chapter of the NAACP went on radio and said that he's known Ron Paul for over 20 years, and swears he isn't a racist.

See here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvFLSwDvBUA

http://www.redpills.org/?p=747

Did you also know that Gaywired.com supports Ron Paul?

http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/

And, for being so "racist," it's awfully strange that there are some black folks that continue to support him:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=k3z8nVaMkuw

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8TJ9ZITd2rs

Of course, the choice is always our own. I find it funny that the newsletters were breaking news, but not when people close to Ron (especially those of the ethnic background he supposedly disparaged) came to his defense, the news was nowhere to be found.

It's pretty obvious to me that since the get-go, the mainstream media has done everything they can to block his message from reaching the public.

BlackLantern

02-07-2008, 11:13 AM

I dont know if there is some far reaching conspiracy to blackout Ron Paul, but IMO most media outlets...much like MOST of the american public know that Ron Paul has never,, nor will ever be considered a serious candidate.....I asked 10 of my coworkers , just average people, who Ron Paul was...3 of them had heard the name and only one actually knew he was running for President....the other 7 looked at me and said "who???"

Lobster Charlie

02-07-2008, 11:17 AM

BlackLantern

02-07-2008, 11:20 AM

yes because the internet is a bastion of truth and journalistic integrity......and porn

Lobster Charlie

02-07-2008, 11:23 AM

Nobody said that--but are you suggesting that the mainstream media has your best interests in mind? At least with the internet I can get *all* news sources--mainstream, fringe, international, what have you.

Take a look at who's running the show, and then ask yourself "Who benefits?" from you accepting what they say, unquestionably.

Matt

02-07-2008, 11:24 AM

The average person gets most of their information from the mainstream media. It's not surprising to hear those folks didn't know who he is.

The mainstream media is already filtered and refined to present to you a message that corporations and the powers-that-be *want* you to see. The internet is an unfiltered news source, where we find things we'd *never* see on television or in our newspapers.

And the average person now has access to the internet 24/7. People know who Ron Paul is. People know what he stands for. They just didn't vote for him. You guys are playing up this "ignorance of the masses due to the media" card way too much as an excuse for Paul losing. The fact is, his message just didn't click with middle America.

Lobster Charlie

02-07-2008, 11:30 AM

I'm responding to what Black Lantern said--that people he knows never even heard of Ron Paul. A lot of folks at my job never heard of him, either--and they also have internet access 24/7. What do you think the average person is browsing on the web? I get the feeling that most of the time it's what they already know---the web equivalents of MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, etc. I still know folks that use AOL for all of their news!

And for the record, I haven't made any excuses for anything. My point is that the mainstream media isn't always the best news source.

Super_Ludacris

02-07-2008, 11:31 AM

lol@ this whole thread.

The dude was like I voted for Ron Paul but how will he win if people dont know him?

So why did you vote for him? lol. Why vote for the least gaurnteed winner? lol@ anything else....

BlackLantern

02-07-2008, 11:31 AM

That and I think the general lack of interest in Ron Paul is a trickle down effect....no one in DC thinks he has a chance....that makes its way to the press corps...and then out to the media....what media outlet is going to expend time,money, and resources to someone who clearly has no chance??...The reporter that has to cover Ron Paul is the guy who shows up last in the office in the morning

ShadowBoxing

02-07-2008, 12:04 PM

He's not an isolationist. He's saying that we shouldn't have military bases in over 100 countries all around the world. He's saying that trade, travel, and diplomacy is the basis of our relationships with other countries, and if there is an armed conflict, we should declare war before be invade sovereign nations.

I'm of the opinion that if George Bush could make it into office, Ron Paul would do 1,000 times better than he could.
Unfortunately, the rest of the world expects help from America's military might. If Ron Paul thinks terrorists or any of our enemies will simply "back off" because we remove our military bases from these countries, he's wrong, he's simply dead wrong.

Denny67

02-07-2008, 12:09 PM

And the average person now has access to the internet 24/7. People know who Ron Paul is. People know what he stands for. They just didn't vote for him. You guys are playing up this "ignorance of the masses due to the media" card way too much as an excuse for Paul losing. The fact is, his message just didn't click with middle America.

The breakdown of face time on average with in the entire debate process is as follows.

Speaking Times:

McCain: 27.6%
Romney: 27.0%
Giuliani: 20.4%
Huckabee: 17.3%
Paul: 7.6%

The subsequent media follow up coverage is even more slanted when you factor in talk radio, newspapers, and mainstream media on the internet. The method of directing the public’s attention and swaying votes is very easy to do. You focus on who you want to focus on and ignore the others.
The less coverage a candidate gets the more thoroughly public is convinced he is a nonfactor. Hence, perception is reality.

Like I said. Nothing to do with the message and everything to do with how people will do whatever the TV tells them to.

Just because it is truth and it is being pointed out as such, does not mean that some of us are “playing up this ignorance of the masses due to the media" as you put it. That is the same mentality that has got George Bush off the hook for lying to the country to get us to go to war… “yeah, I lied and it is the single most important fact in the fact that I am criminal” “but hey.. that has been said a million times” “don’t you have anything new?”

It immediately disqualifies or marginalizes a major point of focus. It is one of the oldest and cheapest debate tactics known to man and the majority of people are still completely taken by it.

I am not.

AllThingsComic

02-07-2008, 01:20 PM

Unfortunately, the rest of the world expects help from America's military might. If Ron Paul thinks terrorists or any of our enemies will simply "back off" because we remove our military bases from these countries, he's wrong, he's simply dead wrong.

I value your opinion, but to continue this war is to contribute the the fall of America. We can no longer afford this war. We shouldn't be in this war. The gov't didn't ask the American people, they just jumped in "for our own good", this war is unconstitutional. We need to bring our boys home and defend our soil, let them try and come here and test the full might of our Armed Forces. I'm sorry, but I believe in taking care of home before taking care of others.

ShadowBoxing

02-07-2008, 02:14 PM

I value your opinion, but to continue this war is to contribute the the fall of America. We can no longer afford this war. We shouldn't be in this war. The gov't didn't ask the American people, they just jumped in "for our own good", this war is unconstitutional. We need to bring our boys home and defend our soil, let them try and come here and test the full might of our Armed Forces. I'm sorry, but I believe in taking care of home before taking care of others.
That wasn't a comment directed at the Iraq war, or any war in particular. I think part of Ron Paul's problem is he doesn't see the difference between the war we have in Iraq and other middle eastern conflicts which might or might not require our intervention. I think it's obvious running this particular war, with tax cuts on top of it, was a bad idea. I don't think the world is so black and white though that one mistake, no matter how large, determines how we should conduct our foreign relations in all cases. Chances are if a country, like say Iran, were to acquire nuclear weapons, simply staying at home with our thumbs up our asses isn't going to prevent or deter them from firing them on American soil.

ShadowBoxing

02-07-2008, 02:18 PM

McCain: 27.6%
Romney: 27.0%
Giuliani: 20.4%
Huckabee: 17.3%
Paul: 7.6%

By you're logic Huckabee, who by far has the least resources, should have been out by Super Tuesday. Romney, who has the most money by far, ought to be the front runner. Guiliani, who has slightly more name recognition than the other candidates, ought not to be a footnote of a footnote by now. However, this doesn't change the fact that one candidate the media wrote off, Huckabee, came back and won 5 states on Super Tuesday, and could possibly do very well in the upcoming Louisiana and Kansas primary.

Denny67

02-07-2008, 05:59 PM

By you're logic Huckabee, who by far has the least resources, should have been out by Super Tuesday. Romney, who has the most money by far, ought to be the front runner. Guiliani, who has slightly more name recognition than the other candidates, ought not to be a footnote of a footnote by now. However, this doesn't change the fact that one candidate the media wrote off, Huckabee, came back and won 5 states on Super Tuesday, and could possibly do very well in the upcoming Louisiana and Kansas primary.

You are not factoring in the religious vote. Huckabee mostly had success in areas with a high percentage of Baptists. This is the same reason Romney dominated Nevada due to Mormon vote. The only real shocker he pulled off was Arizona.
My logic is based in facts. To say that a huge imbalance in candidate exposure and talk time in debates has no bearing on the ability for the country to get to know them and what they stand for in complete asinine.
Huckabee was doing very well in the beginning and had generated a lot of buzz. This was due to having a lot more talk time himself. It is only as of late that his mic was cut (right around the time he forgot about the separation of church and state) and his numbers immediately went in the tank.

ShadowBoxing

02-07-2008, 08:21 PM

You are not factoring in the religious vote.
Actually, I was. That's kind of a key point me and Matt are making, that you consistently miss. People have their reasons for voting for Huckabee, and it's issues based, just as most of those polls claim issues and the candidate as a person factor most into their decision making. Fact is, most wrote off McCain early on in these primaries, almost giving him no time in debates, and devoting most of the air time to Guiliani, Thompson and Romney, all of whom are total wash outs.
Huckabee mostly had success in areas with a high percentage of Baptists. This is the same reason Romney dominated Nevada due to Mormon vote. The only real shocker he pulled off was Arizona.
Okay, and people can't vote over religious issues? So Mormon's wanted a mormon in office, I don't go around criticising mormon's for voting for those reasons. Just like a don't criticize wacko's for wanting another wacko in office. What I do criticize, however, is Ron Paul supporters blaiming everyone else for their candidate's downfall. Or maybe I should start saying "the media" is at fault for the Patriots losing the superbowl:whatever:
My logic is based in facts.
FACT: Ron Paul is fifth, count it, fifth in fund raising for his own party. He is eight in fundraising overall.
FACT: Ron Paul is dead last in vote count
FACT: Everyone KNOWS who Ron Paul is, he is the guy who takes extreme stances in all the debates and stays in the race long past the point where it is STATISTICALLY possible for him to make any ground whatsoever.

You don't base your logic on facts, sorry.
To say that a huge imbalance in candidate exposure and talk time in debates has no bearing on the ability for the country to get to know them and what they stand for in complete asinine.
McCain and Huckabee started out as dark horse candidates behind the much more formitable and rich Guiliani and Romney. You completely ignore this to make a point, that, by all rights, made no sense to begin with. Sorry, the people who vote make up their own minds for their own reasons, and in this case the media, who was toting Guiliani as the preceived frontrunning way back in 2007, were completely and utterly wrong. They totally, I mean totally, wrote off McCain. They said he was too old, and if you were following the debates, you'd realize he got very little face time in the beginning. It was only after New Hampshire, and South Carolina that anyone started paying attention to him.
Huckabee was doing very well in the beginning and had generated a lot of buzz.
...Because he won Iowa, something no one though he would do.
This was due to having a lot more talk time himself.
Yeah, ummmm, no.
It is only as of late that his mic was cut (right around the time he forgot about the separation of church and state) and his numbers immediately went in the tank.
Are you even watching the election coverage:huh: , like at all. He picked up 5 states yesterday, after THE MEDIA completely wrote him off in favor of Romney who JUST DROPPED OUT. Everyone thought Huckabee would win SC, he didn't. Now, after he was sidelined in the last debate, he comes back and carries the south.

BlackLantern

02-07-2008, 09:47 PM

didnt Ron also want to legalize pot.....?? I would guess a nice chunk of his support comes from that

ShadowBoxing

02-07-2008, 09:48 PM

didnt Ron also want to legalize pot.....?? I would guess a nice chunk of his support comes from that
No, he just wants "to leave it up to the states". Actually, come to think of it, that's basically his stance on everything: leave it up to the states. So he doesn't really say "I want to legalize this/that" just that everything is everyone else's decision.

BlackLantern

02-07-2008, 09:51 PM

ShadowBoxing

02-07-2008, 09:53 PM

I think certain decisions should be left up to the states...gay marriage being one of them.....I personally feel marriage should be between 2(two) consenting adults....and by adult I mean 18 yo none of that emancipated crap
Well if that were left up to the states, you'd have about 80% of our states telling gay people they have no business ever getting married.

"State's Rights", especially on issues of human rights, is usually a buzzword for racism. They used to cry state's rights back in the good ole' segregated south to keep blacks in their place so they could avoid integrating the schools and businesses.

BlackLantern

02-07-2008, 09:59 PM

Well if that were left up to the states, you'd have about 80% of our states telling gay people they have no business ever getting married.

"State's Rights", especially on issues of human rights, is usually a buzzword for racism. They used to cry state's rights back in the good ole' segregated south to keep blacks in their place so they could avoid integrating the schools and businesses.

it would be honest.....a big part of this countrys problem and its citizens is that we are such bullsh**ers....we say things like we dont have a problem with black people, yet I still get followed if I walk into certain stores. You have these latte sucking suburbanites donating money to charity, but would you see any of them in a low income neighborhood handing out sandwiches or helping clean a park up NO YOU WONT.....We have no sense of what it means to be a "citizen". The reason our government is run by retards is because our best and brightest go into the private sector because the government (local, state, federal) doesnt pay squat and there is no incentive at all to work there, not when Dell can give you stock options and a time share.....we are so wrapped up in ourselves and no one is willing to admit it

Denny67

02-07-2008, 10:30 PM

No, he just wants "to leave it up to the states". Actually, come to think of it, that's basically his stance on everything: leave it up to the states. So he doesn't really say "I want to legalize this/that" just that everything is everyone else's decision.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

geeee I wonder why that would be? :whatever:

Takes about 30 min to read and just may get you to the point where you may be able to, some day persuade me you have any idea what you are talking about.

ShadowBoxing

02-07-2008, 10:44 PM

it would be honest.....a big part of this countrys problem and its citizens is that we are such bullsh**ers....we say things like we dont have a problem with black people, yet I still get followed if I walk into certain stores. You have these latte sucking suburbanites donating money to charity, but would you see any of them in a low income neighborhood handing out sandwiches or helping clean a park up NO YOU WONT.....We have no sense of what it means to be a "citizen". The reason our government is run by retards is because our best and brightest go into the private sector because the government (local, state, federal) doesnt pay squat and there is no incentive at all to work there, not when Dell can give you stock options and a time share.....we are so wrapped up in ourselves and no one is willing to admit it
Depends on which part of Government. Low level Government jobs are most definitely for bottom feeders, I'm right with you there. Upper level jobs, and no I don't just mean public office, rock my socks off. The pay is great, the competition is fierce and the benefits are beyond awesome.

BlackLantern

02-07-2008, 10:55 PM

ShadowBoxing

02-07-2008, 11:09 PM

geeee I wonder why that would be? :whatever:

Takes about 30 min to read and just may get you to the point where you may be able to, some day persuade me you have any idea what you are talking about.
That's nice and all, but we also have the Commerce clause, the equal protections clause and a number of ammendments to consider. The constitution is a living document, not a Bible, that's why we have an ammendment process and why we have judicial review. The Constitution was not created at a time when we had a need for NASA, an industrial sector the economy or even a modern education system. I was a political science major in college, went in a Republican and came out a Democrat. I probably understand more about this nations history than you do.

Ron Paul's solution to everything: go back to the way the founders did it...is that what you're saying. Sorry, won't happen. It must be nice to run a homogenious society, based in agriculture, where only white male land owners can vote and hold public office. Now, we don't have that luxury. Thankfully the founding fathers, I think, knew this and wrote a pretty vague document. "Life", "liberty" and the "pursuit" of happiness or even what a "right" is, is never clearly defined in the constitution. Sure, you can read Jefferson's letters and find out he had a pretty clear picture of what Government was supposed to be...but then again Jefferson also wanted an entirely new constitution and Government formed every twenty years...and we're still using the original.

The Founding Fathers wanted many things: they wanted an executive who never spoke before Congress. That reminded them too much of kings before parliament. They wanted a country with no standing armies, ever. They felt it gave the executive too much power, when militia's would suffice. They wanted blacks and women to be second class citizens, because they lacked the mental and physical capacities of men...although Jefferson slowly began to abandon that belief. They also wanted an executive who wasn't elected by the people, but rather appointed by Congress. Neither Washington, nor Adams, nor Jefferson were elected in any way similar to today's method. So I don't see how Ron Paul literalists seem to want a literally interpreted constitution in only some regards.

You see the reason the powers of the Federal Government have been expanded IS because of the constitution being interpreted correctly in changing times. Yes, one could argue that certain adminstrations have abused this power, but I guess you could also argue states abuse their rights when they withhold blacks from attending school with white students. The commerce clause protects the Federal Government's right to regulate goods that are produced in one state but consumed by many, or another. Think about this in a modern era context.

Education: originally it was a commody consumed by one state. You probably, or at least in most cases, were educated in one state, grew up in that state, and held employment in that state. Now a days the likelyhood you will settle where you grew up is pretty slim, and it is in the best interest of the Government to make sure your rights are protected if you move from one state to another to ensure you can get the same quality education. Imagine if you move from one state to another, only to find they educated their residents completely differently. That would be pretty troublesome, wouldn't it?

Or perhaps another example. the environment. If you pollute does it affect just you? No, as we've planely seen it effects everyone. Not just in your state, but now as far north as the polar ice caps and as far south as Santa's workshop. The Government has a vested interest in making sure the pollution made by California doesn't effect the clear skies of Nevada, Colorado or Utah: all of which can potentially be affected.

Am I a proponent of big Government, I suppose a Ron Paul supporter would say I am. I like to think though I understand the world is slightly more complex than Ron Paul would make it. Property right's will not stop people from polluting, it will harbor it in fact. State's rights will not protect gay's, mexican's or minorities, it will create a country divided, as it did in the past. The Government's job, first and foremost, according to the Constitution you keep quoting is to protect both the rights of it's citizens, and protect our country from attack. If you think you can accomplish these things with strict constructionalism in today's era, with non interventionalist foreign policy, with low taxes (especially in the current economic climate) you're very much entitled to that belief.

The problem with Ron Paul is all his solutions are the same to me: turn back the clock. Want to fix education, get rid of the DOE and go back to the constitution. Want to fix terrorism, pull all our forces out of the middle east and pretend we never interviewed, we shouldn't be there in the first place. But guess what? we are. Ron Paul lives to criticize the world we are in, not fix it. You will NEVER GO BACK to the way the founding father's intended. It's not going to happen. It wasn't going to happen when Lincoln took office, and it sure as sh** ain't happening now.

ShadowBoxing

02-07-2008, 11:19 PM

I work in the private sector....the only time I have spent with the government is the 4 years I spent in the USN right out of HS....I dont doubt that higher level jobs are the s**t( my dad has a city job in Maine, hes been there for 13 years and hes basically untouchable), but for the most part..our best and brightest are cashing checks from the private sector
Well the private sector is bigger, for one. Also, I don't disagree with you, incidentally. Anyone with bold new ideas is a natural fit for the private sector. You'd be surprised, however, just how many of us (like myself) still value public service. I volunteered for the Clinton campaign for example. It didn't pay, the hours sucked, but I enjoyed campaigning in my home state.

Also, everyone starts out at the bottom. I work a typical retail job right now on top of Bodybuilding and saving up to go back to school, probably for law. I want to run for office eventually, I just lack the experience and ability right now. Becoming a public servant is hard work. Much like anything else, you need connections. The private sector is an easier sell because you have better job security and less risk. In the public sector you can get a job working for a community outreach program, two years later have your funding cut and be out looking for work. Or maybe you're like my friend Joe, who spent a year and a half unemployed, despite being one of the best political aids in all of Massachusetts. Now he works for Deval Patrick, and who knows how long that'll last.

Basically, as I said, Government jobs are competitive as sh**, and you need to really want them. There are a lot of bright people in those fields, they have to be, however, you're right to point out it's not nearly as attractive.

BlackLantern

02-07-2008, 11:22 PM

ShadowBoxing

02-07-2008, 11:29 PM

I commend anyone who wants to run for public office....I recently moved back to the town I grew up in as my job is the next town over...a guy i graduated HS with has twice ran against the incumbent state rep in this district and has lost both times, and he'll run again because its what he WANTS to do....
Hey, that's great. I mean the losing sucks, but the fact that he is trying is a really good thing. I commend anyone, even Ron Paul, for running for public office or working for public services and organizations. There is a lot of risk involved, and often no reward, but if you can succeed, there ain't nothing better to have on your resume.

BlackLantern

02-07-2008, 11:37 PM

I think our state rep elections are due up next November....each year he has received more and more votes....so I hope he wins next time around. Im really intrested in the running mates for the perspective candidates...Im sure they each have a short list of people they would want...

ShadowBoxing

02-07-2008, 11:40 PM

The Senator

02-07-2008, 11:45 PM

I commend anyone who wants to run for public office....I recently moved back to the town I grew up in as my job is the next town over...a guy i graduated HS with has twice ran against the incumbent state rep in this district and has lost both times, and he'll run again because its what he WANTS to do....

Some day, when I know exactly what it is I want to do, I plan to run for public office. Unfortunately, I can't run back home, so it will take a lot of time and networking. But it isn't out of the realm of possibilities.

Also, ShadowBoxing, what would you be interested in running for? Do you have any political experiences or connections? (you may have mentioned it, but I avoided most of the conversation because I'm neither opposed to or against Ron Paul/ libertarianism)

BlackLantern

02-07-2008, 11:47 PM

The Senator

02-07-2008, 11:51 PM

just curious...why can't you run there??

Upstate New York is conservative, so they won't take kindly to a gay liberal. And with redistricting set to take place in 2010, Upstate is likely to lose two Congressional seats and a few state legislature seats anyway. They'd become progressively Republican, so I don't want to run in a place I can't win or have the opportunity to ascend to higher office.

ShadowBoxing

02-07-2008, 11:52 PM

Some day, when I know exactly what it is I want to do, I plan to run for public office. Unfortunately, I can't run back home, so it will take a lot of time and networking. But it isn't out of the realm of possibilities.

Also, ShadowBoxing, what would you be interested in running for? Do you have any political experiences or connections? (you may have mentioned it, but I avoided most of the conversation because I'm neither opposed to or against Ron Paul/ libertarianism)
Well I worked for a campaign for a while. I know certain people who hold various offices. I've met Bill Clinton twice and talked with him:oldrazz: . But...no...no real connections yet, I'd say. I'm going to go back to school first, either for Public Policy or Law, probably law, as they say it's a better safety net. Maybe business as well, because there seems to be launchpads from the private sector, and let's just say I stand to inherit a business anyways.

What I would run for. Something local to start out, like state legislature.
Upstate New York is conservative, so they won't take kindly to a gay liberal.
Bah! I want to run in South Carolina, and I was born in Massachusetts. lol. I'm going to fake a Southern accent when I run, lol.

bell110

02-08-2008, 08:44 AM

So much to reply to :(

Why are you so confrontational? Then you ask why people complain about Paul supporters so much. I have never met a group of political supporters as confrontational and in your face as Ron Paul supporters.

You're really not. Anytime someone brings up something negative or at least something they think is negative) about Ron Paul, you brush it off with some lame retort. I mean, you were defending the racist content of his newsletter earlier. Seriously.

I don't think any of us has been any more confrontational than any other political supporter. Most of the negative I see people bring up are based on ignorance and half-truths. If I did the same to another candidates thread, I'm sure I'd get the same type of "confrontation".

I dont know if there is some far reaching conspiracy to blackout Ron Paul, but IMO most media outlets...much like MOST of the american public know that Ron Paul has never,, nor will ever be considered a serious candidate.....I asked 10 of my coworkers , just average people, who Ron Paul was...3 of them had heard the name and only one actually knew he was running for President....the other 7 looked at me and said "who???"

How can you say most Americans will never consider him serious, when 7 out of ten people you ask, don't know who he is.

And, as I said before, in my real world experience, some people that I know who could care less about voting, has expressed intrest in voting because of him. That says to me that if more disinfranchised voters heard his message, he might actually be a serious contender. BUT, the other candidates don't want that.

yes because the internet is a bastion of truth and journalistic integrity......and porn

Unfortunately, the media isn't about information anymore. It's more like real world entertainment. That's why on wednesday, Fox (and I assume the other stations) were covering the breaking story of Britneys release from the hospital, a la OJ Simpson, helicopter and all.

And the average person now has access to the internet 24/7. People know who Ron Paul is. People know what he stands for. They just didn't vote for him. You guys are playing up this "ignorance of the masses due to the media" card way too much as an excuse for Paul losing. The fact is, his message just didn't click with middle America.

You're looking at it through biased eyes. You may know who he is and what he stands for, because politics interests you. If someone asked me who the better team was, the Wizards or the Bulls, I couldn't answer because I have no interest in basketball. But someone who does could say, "Come on, EVERYBODY KNOWS the Bulls are better."

Most Americans don't care about politics. Hell, most Americans don't even vote. And of the ones that do, they get their news from tv most likely. And the one who might care, will only care enough to MAYBE take 10 minutes out of the day to look up the top candidates on the internet.

People who actually take the time to follow politics are rare, IMO. How many users are registered to the Hype, something like 20,000? How many of them post regularly in the political form, maybe 25?

lol@ this whole thread.

The dude was like I voted for Ron Paul but how will he win if people dont know him?

So why did you vote for him? lol. Why vote for the least gaurnteed winner? lol@ anything else....

This isn't horse racing, it's politics.

bell110

02-08-2008, 10:49 AM

That wasn't a comment directed at the Iraq war, or any war in particular. I think part of Ron Paul's problem is he doesn't see the difference between the war we have in Iraq and other middle eastern conflicts which might or might not require our intervention.

The problem with the other candidates is that they don't realize that the middle east has ALWAYS been in conflict. WE are not going to change that, no matter how many roadmaps we come up with. Our presence there only makes things WORSE, and then things like 9/11 happen, and we end up looking like jackasses.

We can either go on the offensive, kill a bunch of people, stir up the hornets nest, make more of them hate us and give them justification to attack us again; OR we could go on the defensive, keep them contained in their neck of the woods, watch our own backs, and let them kill each other.

Yes, I agree with you that the middle east is complex, BUT I think it's Paul that understands this and is looking at the big picture. The other candidates position is us=good, them=bad. Can't get any more black and white then that.

I think it's obvious running this particular war, with tax cuts on top of it, was a bad idea. I don't think the world is so black and white though that one mistake, no matter how large, determines how we should conduct our foreign relations in all cases.

But it's not one mistake. It's been a series of mistakes stretching back to the end of WWI. Granted, most of those early mistakes are the fault of Britian and France, but since then, our insatiable need for oil has not helped the people of the middle east, except for a few royals.

We can't change the past, but we certainly aren't learning from it.

Chances are if a country, like say Iran, were to acquire nuclear weapons, simply staying at home with our thumbs up our asses isn't going to prevent or deter them from firing them on American soil.

1. Without thinking from the perspective of an American, why shouldn't they be aloud to have a nuke? Isreal, India, and Pakastan have them. Why isn't Iran aloud to have one to protect themselves from foreign aggressors, ie; us?

2. Even if they did get one, they don't have a means of firing one at us. And if they ever do, we should have the means to intercept it.

3. What's going to prevent and deter them from firing one at us if they were capable, is the fact that we would ANNIHILATE them.

By you're logic Huckabee, who by far has the least resources, should have been out by Super Tuesday. Romney, who has the most money by far, ought to be the front runner. Guiliani, who has slightly more name recognition than the other candidates, ought not to be a footnote of a footnote by now. However, this doesn't change the fact that one candidate the media wrote off, Huckabee, came back and won 5 states on Super Tuesday, and could possibly do very well in the upcoming Louisiana and Kansas primary.

Huckabee has the religious right. The fact that the media wrote off Huckabee shows how stupid they are. Two left leaning republicans, and a mormon. NOBODY should be surprised by this.

[/font]
Actually, I was. That's kind of a key point me and Matt are making, that you consistently miss. People have their reasons for voting for Huckabee, and it's issues based, just as most of those polls claim issues and the candidate as a person factor most into their decision making. Fact is, most wrote off McCain early on in these primaries, almost giving him no time in debates, and devoting most of the air time to Guiliani, Thompson and Romney, all of whom are total wash outs.

Okay, and people can't vote over religious issues? So Mormon's wanted a mormon in office, I don't go around criticising mormon's for voting for those reasons. Just like a don't criticize wacko's for wanting another wacko in office. What I do criticize, however, is Ron Paul supporters blaiming everyone else for their candidate's downfall. Or maybe I should start saying "the media" is at fault for the Patriots losing the superbowl:whatever:

The difference is that all those candidates have had debates where they've had good coverage and they've had bad coverage. Paul has not had good coverage IMO.

FACT: Ron Paul is fifth, count it, fifth in fund raising for his own party. He is eight in fundraising overall.
FACT: Ron Paul is dead last in vote count
FACT: Everyone KNOWS who Ron Paul is, he is the guy who takes extreme stances in all the debates and stays in the race long past the point where it is STATISTICALLY possible for him to make any ground whatsoever.

You don't base your logic on facts, sorry.

Fact number 3 isn't a fact. Few people know who Paul is, and a lot of them are misinformed. Extemity is a matter of opinion. I think banning gay marrage, believing in creationism, and illegal invasions and occupations are pretty extreme, but most of the candidates don't. And I don't think admitting that we some what made them want to attack us on 9/11 is an extreme view.

McCain and Huckabee started out as dark horse candidates behind the much more formitable and rich Guiliani and Romney. You completely ignore this to make a point, that, by all rights, made no sense to begin with. Sorry, the people who vote make up their own minds for their own reasons, and in this case the media, who was toting Guiliani as the preceived frontrunning way back in 2007, were completely and utterly wrong. They totally, I mean totally, wrote off McCain. They said he was too old, and if you were following the debates, you'd realize he got very little face time in the beginning. It was only after New Hampshire, and South Carolina that anyone started paying attention to him.

...Because he won Iowa, something no one though he would do.

Yeah, ummmm, no.

Are you even watching the election coverage:huh: , like at all. He picked up 5 states yesterday, after THE MEDIA completely wrote him off in favor of Romney who JUST DROPPED OUT. Everyone thought Huckabee would win SC, he didn't. Now, after he was sidelined in the last debate, he comes back and carries the south.

For my reply to this block, read above.

No, he just wants "to leave it up to the states". Actually, come to think of it, that's basically his stance on everything: leave it up to the states. So he doesn't really say "I want to legalize this/that" just that everything is everyone else's decision.

I think certain decisions should be left up to the states...gay marriage being one of them.....I personally feel marriage should be between 2(two) consenting adults....and by adult I mean 18 yo none of that emancipated crap

A lot of laws are left up to the state, so I don't see how you guys are seeing this as a negitive.

That's nice and all, but we also have the Commerce clause, the equal protections clause and a number of ammendments to consider. The constitution is a living document, not a Bible, that's why we have an ammendment process and why we have judicial review. The Constitution was not created at a time when we had a need for NASA, an industrial sector the economy or even a modern education system. I was a political science major in college, went in a Republican and came out a Democrat. I probably understand more about this nations history than you do.

Ron Paul's solution to everything: go back to the way the founders did it...is that what you're saying. Sorry, won't happen. It must be nice to run a homogenious society, based in agriculture, where only white male land owners can vote and hold public office. Now, we don't have that luxury.

You seriously don't believe that he wants to take us back to the 1700s :wow: ?

Thankfully the founding fathers, I think, knew this and wrote a pretty vague document. "Life", "liberty" and the "pursuit" of happiness or even what a "right" is, is never clearly defined in the constitution. Sure, you can read Jefferson's letters and find out he had a pretty clear picture of what Government was supposed to be...but then again Jefferson also wanted an entirely new constitution and Government formed every twenty years...and we're still using the original.

The Founding Fathers wanted many things: they wanted an executive who never spoke before Congress. That reminded them too much of kings before parliament. They wanted a country with no standing armies, ever. They felt it gave the executive too much power, when militia's would suffice. They wanted blacks and women to be second class citizens, because they lacked the mental and physical capacities of men...although Jefferson slowly began to abandon that belief. They also wanted an executive who wasn't elected by the people, but rather appointed by Congress. Neither Washington, nor Adams, nor Jefferson were elected in any way similar to today's method. So I don't see how Ron Paul literalists seem to want a literally interpreted constitution in only some regards.

Saying people that support Paul are all constitution literalist is like saying all people who believe in Christ is a Bible literalist.

This may shock you, but just like every other person who supports a candidate, they don't ALL agree with EVERY aspect of their platform. I admit, some things I read about him and go :huh: , like getting rid of the DOE. But, he most closely represents what my ideal America should be. And frankly, the DOE is hardly the envy of the worlds, and no other candidate offers a better solution, so why not give it a try?

And Paul isn't trying to take us back to 1700s, that's absurd to think. He wants the consititution to be more relevent than it's being treated now. Frankly, ALL candidates talk highly about the ideas of the founding fathers and the greatness of the constitution, but again, Paul is the only one honest enough to back that claim up. Other people just think of the constitution as an obstacle to get around.

You see the reason the powers of the Federal Government have been expanded IS because of the constitution being interpreted correctly in changing times. Yes, one could argue that certain adminstrations have abused this power, but I guess you could also argue states abuse their rights when they withhold blacks from attending school with white students. The commerce clause protects the Federal Government's right to regulate goods that are produced in one state but consumed by many, or another. Think about this in a modern era context.

Education: originally it was a commody consumed by one state. You probably, or at least in most cases, were educated in one state, grew up in that state, and held employment in that state. Now a days the likelyhood you will settle where you grew up is pretty slim, and it is in the best interest of the Government to make sure your rights are protected if you move from one state to another to ensure you can get the same quality education. Imagine if you move from one state to another, only to find they educated their residents completely differently. That would be pretty troublesome, wouldn't it?

Or perhaps another example. the environment. If you pollute does it affect just you? No, as we've planely seen it effects everyone. Not just in your state, but now as far north as the polar ice caps and as far south as Santa's workshop. The Government has a vested interest in making sure the pollution made by California doesn't effect the clear skies of Nevada, Colorado or Utah: all of which can potentially be affected.

Am I a proponent of big Government, I suppose a Ron Paul supporter would say I am. I like to think though I understand the world is slightly more complex than Ron Paul would make it. Property right's will not stop people from polluting, it will harbor it in fact. State's rights will not protect gay's, mexican's or minorities, it will create a country divided, as it did in the past. The Government's job, first and foremost, according to the Constitution you keep quoting is to protect both the rights of it's citizens, and protect our country from attack. If you think you can accomplish these things with strict constructionalism in today's era, with non interventionalist foreign policy, with low taxes (especially in the current economic climate) you're very much entitled to that belief.

That's a lot to digest, and sounds like an alarmist view point. No one is trying to get rid of the federal government. Giving more power to the states isn't going to result in legal segregation again. Property rights can help pollution in that if someones pollution affects my property, I can sue them for it. Besides, what's the government doing now and what are the other candidate going to do about it that is better? Education, you make it seem if I move from one state to the next, 1+1 might not equal 2. I guess we can use the Democrat method of fixing a problem; throw money at it. :csad:

The problem with Ron Paul is all his solutions are the same to me: turn back the clock. Want to fix education, get rid of the DOE and go back to the constitution. Want to fix terrorism, pull all our forces out of the middle east and pretend we never interviewed, we shouldn't be there in the first place. But guess what? we are. Ron Paul lives to criticize the world we are in, not fix it. You will NEVER GO BACK to the way the founding father's intended. It's not going to happen. It wasn't going to happen when Lincoln took office, and it sure as sh** ain't happening now.

No one is trying to turn back the clock. Paul is actually the only one trying to fix things by trying something new. Everyone else is just doing the same old thing with a slight twist.

And you really sound anti-constitution. Like we should scrap the whole thing and start again.

Super_Ludacris

02-08-2008, 11:10 AM

Heated......

ShadowBoxing

02-08-2008, 11:22 AM

Property rights can help pollution in that if someones pollution affects my property, I can sue them for it. .
Okay, what if you don't give a sh**? Or what if you're a nuclear power plant and you just buy up a whole bunch of land so you can pollute the sh** out of it?

bell110

02-08-2008, 11:54 AM

Heated......

Not heated, just very long winded.

Okay, what if you don't give a sh**? Or what if you're a nuclear power plant and you just buy up a whole bunch of land so you can pollute the sh** out of it?

Then you are a bad person. Then you get taken to court, because what you did on your property adversely effected someone elses.

The Senator

02-08-2008, 12:08 PM

Then you are a bad person. Then you get taken to court, because what you did on your property adversely effected someone elses.

Bull****. If someone lives near a radioactive storage facility, it's their own damn fault. Usually neighborhoods disclose that sort of thing, and in some cases, the government offers to compensate citizens if they feel the facility is interfering with their health.

Also, nuclear power plants themselves are required to be built away from residential areas, usually outside a three-mile radius.

Denny67

02-08-2008, 12:51 PM

That's nice and all, but we also have the Commerce clause, the equal protections clause and a number of ammendments to consider. The constitution is a living document, not a Bible, that's why we have an ammendment process and why we have judicial review. The Constitution was not created at a time when we had a need for NASA, an industrial sector the economy or even a modern education system. I was a political science major in college, went in a Republican and came out a Democrat. I probably understand more about this nations history than you do.

LMAO… I knew you were a poli sci student the second I read you first post on this board. I have never met a poli sci student whose views were so far shaped in one direction that almost all resemblance of critical thought were completely driven out. Only through today’s college proffesors would any American look at The Constitution of The United States America, the bedrock of your country and open up an argument referring to one of its amendments with “That's nice and all.”

Ron Paul's solution to everything: go back to the way the founders did it...is that what you're saying. Sorry, won't happen. It must be nice to run a homogenious society, based in agriculture, where only white male land owners can vote and hold public office. Now, we don't have that luxury. Thankfully the founding fathers, I think, knew this and wrote a pretty vague document. "Life", "liberty" and the "pursuit" of happiness or even what a "right" is, is never clearly defined in the constitution. Sure, you can read Jefferson's letters and find out he had a pretty clear picture of what Government was supposed to be...but then again Jefferson also wanted an entirely new constitution and Government formed every twenty years...and we're still using the original.

No, Ron Paul’s message has been for this country not to lose sight of what the sprit of this country was and should be as the founders had intended. His views, had you bothered listening, are very much rooted in the modern day and he himself has suggested changes to the Constitution to help bring it up to speed with the modern era. He has also stated that when these changes are made they should be done very carefully and changes made to the Constitution should never be taken lightly. I find it very humorous that you seem to admire Thomas Jefferson, (who happens to be one of my historical heroes) and yet are so opposed to Ron Paul. The vision he has for America is rooted in part in Jeffersonian ideals.

The Founding Fathers wanted many things: they wanted an executive who never spoke before Congress. That reminded them too much of kings before parliament. They wanted a country with no standing armies, ever. They felt it gave the executive too much power, when militia's would suffice. They wanted blacks and women to be second class citizens, because they lacked the mental and physical capacities of men...although Jefferson slowly began to abandon that belief. They also wanted an executive who wasn't elected by the people, but rather appointed by Congress. Neither Washington, nor Adams, nor Jefferson were elected in any way similar to today's method. So I don't see how Ron Paul literalists seem to want a literally interpreted constitution in only some regards.

You see the reason the powers of the Federal Government have been expanded IS because of the constitution being interpreted correctly in changing times. Yes, one could argue that certain adminstrations have abused this power, but I guess you could also argue states abuse their rights when they withhold blacks from attending school with white students. The commerce clause protects the Federal Government's right to regulate goods that are produced in one state but consumed by many, or another. Think about this in a modern era context.

The Founding Fathers did want many things and they were not perfect. We have had 200 years of fine tuning and we are still evolving as a country. To play the race angle in a debate like this is weak and tired. It is no longer relevant in today’s society. Yes, it is a historical fact that there was slavery and bigotry that was rampant in the US at one point in its history but every major country has had it young dark times. The assertion that this country’s successful are exclusively made up of old white guys is completely false and is either a complete misunderstanding of reality or and out and out lie. This little portion of you dissertation I will wrap up to an immaterial tangent.

Education: originally it was a commody consumed by one state. You probably, or at least in most cases, were educated in one state, grew up in that state, and held employment in that state. Now a days the likelyhood you will settle where you grew up is pretty slim, and it is in the best interest of the Government to make sure your rights are protected if you move from one state to another to ensure you can get the same quality education. Imagine if you move from one state to another, only to find they educated their residents completely differently. That would be pretty troublesome, wouldn't it?

Actually from grades K-12 I attended 28 different schools. YES 28. I can tell you first hand that the education progression and pace varies widely, not only from state to state but in many cases county to county.

Now this may be a shock to you but the federal government does not now, nor has it ever set the curriculum or graduation requirements for our schools.

Education is primarily a State and local responsibility in the United States. It is States and communities, as well as public and private organizations of all kinds, that establish schools and colleges, develop curricula, and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation. The structure of education finance in America reflects this predominant State and local role. Of an estimated $1 trillion being spent nationwide on education at all levels for school year 2007-2008, a substantial majority will come from State, local, and private sources. This is especially true at the elementary and secondary level, where just over 91 percent of the funds will come from non-Federal sources.

But don’t take my word for it … http://www.ed.gov (http://www.ed.gov/) look it up yourself. The most fascinating thing about it is that 91% of the annual 1 trillion raised comes from the “evil privet sector” of non-Federal sources.

Or perhaps another example. the environment. If you pollute does it affect just you? No, as we've planely seen it effects everyone. Not just in your state, but now as far north as the polar ice caps and as far south as Santa's workshop. The Government has a vested interest in making sure the pollution made by California doesn't effect the clear skies of Nevada, Colorado or Utah: all of which can potentially be affected.

Ok... tangent again. Not sure what you are arguing here but yeah pollution is bad. Unless you are trying to draw a parallel in the effects of pollution and perceived inequality in the education system with is a horrible analogy based in a wrong assumption.

Am I a proponent of big Government, I suppose a Ron Paul supporter would say I am. I like to think though I understand the world is slightly more complex than Ron Paul would make it. Property right's will not stop people from polluting, it will harbor it in fact. State's rights will not protect gay's, mexican's or minorities, it will create a country divided, as it did in the past. The Government's job, first and foremost, according to the Constitution you keep quoting is to protect both the rights of it's citizens, and protect our country from attack. If you think you can accomplish these things with strict constructionalism in today's era, with non interventionalist foreign policy, with low taxes (especially in the current economic climate) you're very much entitled to that belief.

Typical ingrained fear IMO. The Bush Corpocrats have us fearing the radical terrorists boogie men and the Socialist crowd has us fearing ourselves. Both sides are utterly convinced that we as a people have no ability to think on our own. I will just agree to disagree with you here. There is no reason to go round and round trying to convince one another to see each other’s views here because I honestly do not feel it is going to happen.

The problem with Ron Paul is all his solutions are the same to me: turn back the clock. Want to fix education, get rid of the DOE and go back to the constitution. Want to fix terrorism, pull all our forces out of the middle east and pretend we never interviewed, we shouldn't be there in the first place. But guess what? we are. Ron Paul lives to criticize the world we are in, not fix it. You will NEVER GO BACK to the way the founding father's intended. It's not going to happen. It wasn't going to happen when Lincoln took office, and it sure as sh** ain't happening now.

That is where you are dead wrong again. Unless you mean turn back the clock to less corrupted time. You see I have been having these arguments back and forth about Capitalism vs Socialism/Communism for a long time. Whether you realize it or not that is what you are arguing here. In doing so I have seen a single commonality… Corruption.

It is the one major area people negelct to talk about.

As of now the tie between lobbyist and Washington need to be severed permanently. The government needs to return to working as a regulatory entity that is active in oversight and enforcement only. As of now government is nothing more than a business partner to big business. This being the case they are not entirely working in the best interest of the American people. This is a violation of the basic fundamentals of our government and to is not what we pay taxes for.

Many are under the assumption that Capitalism is some how bad and Socialism is the greener grass on the other side of the hill when in fact we have never been given the opportunity to see any of the worlds societal ideologies work without the taint of corruption on it.

Capitalism is in fact just as workable as anything else and I would argue that in fact it is superior because it is an environment that is conducive to absolute freedom of choice, which is every living person birthright.

The problem is not what we are doing; it is how we are doing it. Until a major reform in this country takes place and someone comes along who is thinking outside of the box we will stay on this downward spiraling path.

This is the reason people are attracted to Ron Paul. He has new and fresh ideas based on freedom and reform.

It has been shown over and over that the current way of doing things is not working to think anything else is just crazy. To those who do not agree I submit a quote from someone far more intelligent and insightful than myself.

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -Albert Einstein

Ron Paul has been branded a radical for being so different in his approach to things and I argue he is the only sane one in a room of nuts. The reason we are in trouble now is because we have gone away and circumnavigate the Constitution. I agree with Paul that the way to fix this country is not not go further away from it but to get back to what made this country great to begin with.

No good has ever come from giving up ones freedoms. Historical Fact.

The Senator

02-09-2008, 01:02 AM

Well, Ron Paul supporters, it looks like your candidate may be unofficially leaving the race:

From Ron Paul's Website
Whoa! What a year this has been. And what achievements we have had. If I may quote Trotsky of all people, this Revolution is permanent. It will not end at the Republican convention. It will not end in November. It will not end until we have won the great battle on which we have embarked. Not because of me, but because of you. Millions of Americans -- and friends in many other countries -- have dedicated themselves to the principles of liberty: to free enterprise, limited government, sound money, no income tax, and peace. We will not falter so long as there is one restriction on our persons, our property, our civil liberties. How much I owe you. I can never possibly repay your generous donations, hard work, whole-hearted dedication and love of freedom. How blessed I am to be associated with you. Carol, of course, sends her love as well.

Let me tell you my thoughts. With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties -- just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.

I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.

In the presidential race and the congressional race, I need your support, as always. And I have plans to continue fighting for our ideas in politics and education that I will share with you when I can, for I will need you at my side. In the meantime, onward and upward! The neocons, the warmongers, the socialists, the advocates of inflation will be hearing much from you and me.

Sincerely,

Ron

He may not officially suspend his campaign, but from what I gather from this, he isn't going to actively campaign between now and the convention.

Showtime

02-09-2008, 01:27 AM

I think he was the last one to know he wasn't in the race.

bunk

02-09-2008, 02:09 AM

Well, since he'll never get adequate airtime to say anything I'm sure this is the alternative.

bell110

02-10-2008, 05:46 AM

Bull****. If someone lives near a radioactive storage facility, it's their own damn fault. Usually neighborhoods disclose that sort of thing, and in some cases, the government offers to compensate citizens if they feel the facility is interfering with their health.

Also, nuclear power plants themselves are required to be built away from residential areas, usually outside a three-mile radius.

You'd make a good lawyer. :yay:

bell110

02-11-2008, 05:45 AM

I'm sad that he won't run as the Libertarian candidate, but I understand that it's best that he at least keeps his congressional seat. I'm still voting for him on Tuesday. :up:

Denny67

02-12-2008, 03:28 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryMliyeIDp4

Looks like the answer is no... he is not.

Lobster Charlie

02-12-2008, 03:44 PM

Showtime

02-13-2008, 09:45 AM

He would be much better off as a 3rd part candidate.

Super_Ludacris

02-13-2008, 09:56 AM

LMAO@ a presidential candidate starting his message with "Whoa!"

This dude started off like Keanu Reeves and ended like a Stan Lee editorial taking about "Onward and Upward!". I was looking for him to drop an "Excelsior!" out this mutha****a lol

The Senator

02-13-2008, 06:47 PM

He's just scaling it back a bit, waiting to make his next move. Not to mention he wants to secure his Congressional seat, so he's basically going to be running two campaigns at once.

I still wish he'd go 3rd party, though.

He's better focus solely on his Congressional campaign, because interior polls have shown his primary challenger to have taken a pretty big edge in early polls. That's surprising considering his popularity in the district. Paul also doesn't have a lot of money which can be used in his primary. If he wants to use funds from his Presidential campaign, he'll have to drop out entirely... and that could happen before the Texas primary.

ScottyBBadd

02-15-2008, 01:42 PM

He would be much better off as a 3rd part candidate.

I think so. I would vote for him as a 3rd party/ Independant.

Venom'sDad

02-24-2008, 12:55 AM

I have just lost all respect for Glenn Beck. I use to be a big fan of his; but that is now lost.

He constantly preaching about how there is no candidate and/or what Gov should do about immigration, our monetary problem, the Constitution, and the deficit. He is touting the VERY same thing that Ron Paul has been saying for 7 months in his campaign; yet, on a number of occasions, Glenn Beck ridicules Ron Paul for even having the audacity to run for President in the Republican Primary, yet alone his platform.

Whelther one believes Paul had no shot isn't the point. Paul did everything that was ask of him in QUALIFYING to run in the Republican Primary. Most commentators and pundits hate Paul for his Constitutionist message. That should tell everyone something about the level of propaganda the U.S. Media has against the Constitution and the Rights of the People.

:mad:

Kel

02-24-2008, 11:27 AM

Cool... now only if you did some research to add to that......

Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ce........go play in another yard.....:cwink:

Memphis Slim

02-25-2008, 06:33 AM

Dark Vigilante

05-01-2008, 09:46 PM

Ron Paul's new book "The Revolution: A Manifesto" is currently the best-selling book on Amazon.com, and it was released yesterday. It's sold more copies than other bestsellers have in months.

http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537519/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209691254&sr=1-1

I got my copy yesterday, and it truly is an incredible read. Here is my review for it on Amazon.com:

It absolutely thrills me to see that this very important piece of literature is currently the best-selling book on Amazon.com. It gives me hope that a real revolution for the values we once stood for is possible, and that is in fact at our doorstep.

The time is now. Without a doubt in my heart, I firmly believe it is time to finally make a stand and prove once more to the world what truly makes America the last best hope for all of mankind. It is time once more that we set an example and bestow to the world the truths of freedom and the inherent greatness that comes with that God-given blessing. Like we did in 1776, it will happen again, and a revolt in the name of freedom must start, and it must start now.

Ron Paul, undoubtedly the most principled and courageous public servant this nation has been blessed to have in the past fifty years has started something that the pages of history will most certainly remember. He has planted the seeds with his Presidential campaign, and it is with this book that the fresh roots of freedom have begun to reach deep into the soil. The Revolution is eye-opening and easy to understand, perfect for those who know in their soul that something is wrong with America and that it needs to be corrected but do not know how. Congressman Paul quite efficiently presents the same case for individual freedom our Founding Fathers did, and he presents it well, using his experience in Congress and his general knowledge of political philosophy to back up his argument. He makes it quite clear that really the only way to true freedom is through limited government and a halt to our country’s passage down a long and dark corridor that only ends in doom. Through the abolition of the needless and corrupt Federal Reserve. Through the end of needless and tragically wasteful wars that only fulfill the elite's imperial globalist agenda. Through the use of responsible governance, and careful checks on the centralization of power which will inevitably undermine the freedom we as Americans enjoy. And with a return to the sound ideas, principles, and values that our Founding Fathers gave to us in the Constitution. These things will make this country great once more.

With that said, please buy this book. Buy more than one and give it to friends and family. It is truly through education that the roots of liberty can grow and blossom into the Second American Revolution we as Americans have a sacred duty to wage. It is in our own Declaration of Independence that this duty is entrusted, "that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

It is time we turn away from the nationalist definition of "patriot" that has been crammed down our throat by the elitists who own both the government and the mass media. A true patriot is one who is concerned with his people, not his government. One who will do whatever is necessary to ensure that what is best for his people is obtained, and if that means dissent from the tyranny and corruption from a government that deprives his people of the rights of freedom, then it must be done.

Within each of us there is a sleeping dormant fire. Instilled in us by our Founding Fathers and the articles and ideas they left to history and to us, this flame has been quietly submerged over time in the murky waters of ignored corruption and tyranny. But it has not drowned, nor will it ever. It is a part of us, as much as our hands are and as much as our hearts are. And while it can be hidden, it can be dimmed for a while; it is inextinguishable. The burning beauty of the rebellious American patriot still lives within us all and it hungers for it to be known once more. There will be a day of reckoning. There will be a day in which these bold flames of liberty will burn brightly once more for all the world to see.

Long Live the Republic! Death to the New World Order! Liberty Shall Prevail!

Let the Revolution begin.

Kel

05-01-2008, 09:47 PM

Should be an interesting read.......I'll have to pick it up.

The Senator

05-01-2008, 10:11 PM

I'll pass, thanks.